tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6052097781213973653.post725623985870119393..comments2023-10-25T02:52:26.716-07:00Comments on Tzimiskes: First (negative) Reaction to a Rather Good Op-Ed on MedicaidTzimiskeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13002441291627298737noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6052097781213973653.post-79871564641062513292011-04-26T09:39:56.090-07:002011-04-26T09:39:56.090-07:00To some extent you're describing the sola scri...To some extent you're describing the sola scripturum/revelation debate of the 16th century. I happen to agree with you that the civil war and the 145 years since have resolved the question in favor of federalism. But it is not automatically false to go back to the founding documents and reopen the debate. I have friends in South Carolina so if you want to fire on Fort Sumter, I should be able to arrange a place to stay.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6052097781213973653.post-61640974329436015282011-04-26T05:59:04.377-07:002011-04-26T05:59:04.377-07:00Doug,
Yeah, I agree that there is some ambiguity ...Doug,<br /><br />Yeah, I agree that there is some ambiguity in the Constitution about whether the US was meant to be a Federal Republic or a Confederation of States. I think the best interpretation is that the Founding Fathers that everyone talks about wanted a Federal Republic, but some of the guys that happened to be in the same room as them and very few people can name needed to be convinced to sign the document and wanted a Confederation so a certain amount of ambiguity was introduced. Since the Constitution was a reaction to the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers are a strong statement of Federalism in opposition to the Confederate arguments of the anti-Federalist papers, and we had the whole Civil War thing to settle the ambiguity as well, I think the argument that we're a Federal Republic rather than Confederation of states is just a smidgen stronger the interpretation of the Constitution as intending for a group of sovereign states grouped together in a Confederacy.<br /><br />Though I think a big part of the issue is that the meaning of sovereignty has drifted somewhat since the 18th century. It's one of those terms that used to be applied more generally, while I certainly haven't read enough to be entirely certain that my interpretation of its use is correct, my impression is that it used to mean just a little more than the power to make laws. While there was always some implication of a degree of independence to the word, over time this element of it has become much stronger. This is problematic when people read only a couple of documents from that era, without reflecting on how the meaning of certain terms have changed over time, resulting in interpretations of history that I find rather peculiar.Tzimiskeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002441291627298737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6052097781213973653.post-70092674726186753432011-04-25T20:21:41.343-07:002011-04-25T20:21:41.343-07:00Go, Tzi! This is not an issue I lose a lot of sle...Go, Tzi! This is not an issue I lose a lot of sleep over but I have the impression (and you're the historian) that is has been seen as ambiguous whether the United States was founded as a federation, a confederation or a confoundment. Certainly, the U.S. constitution circumscribes the federal government and only in granting specific powers to the U.S. cicrumscribes those of the states.<br /><br />All that said, you're right that states obviously weren't intended to be sovereign. They cannot become monarchies (except Louisiana every now and then,) they cannot make war on each other no matter how badly they want to, they cannot ratify treaties and they cannot fail to honor contracts their neighbors honored. They cannot elect Haley Barbour president.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.com