Talk:Articles of Confederation

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Did someone fail to read the Articles in question? From Weaknesses section: "It established no executive to enforce laws, no army or navy, no judiciary, no national currency, could not regulate trade, no way to collect taxes, and foreign policy was impossible."


Executive: Article IX, X.

Army and Navy: Article IX.

Judiciary: Article IX.

National currency (There is no constitutional national currency!): Article IX

Tax : Article VIII

Foreign Affairs: Article IX


Philosophical issues

To head off conflict, can we agree that what the Articles state, is an accurate statement? For example, Articles I and II establish that there are two distinct things - the "United States of America" (the former colonies united) and the "United States, in Congress assembled"?

This is crucial to comprehend the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. If we recognize that the term "United States" means nothing more than the Congress, then the Preamble "We, the People of the United States" does not refer to the people in the United States of America. In fact, the authors note that distinction by referring to the USA at the end of the Preamble.

If that is not acceptable, I will defer raising further objections.

If it IS acceptable, then we can move forward in understanding the nature of the BIG CON.

Article IV describes "free inhabitants" who are NOT "free citizens". That means that there were / are Americans who are not citizens, nor bound to civic duties. Coincidentally, the U.S. CONstitution uses the term people when referring to rights and powers, but uses citizen when referring to privileges and immunities.

In other words, the American nationals (free inhabitants) who have not submitted themselves as subject citizens of the government retain all their powers and rights, and are not subject to conscription, civic duties or other impositions.

This would parallel the various court rulings that admit that the American people are sovereign over the governments.

And since involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, how did "everyone" born in American become "U.S. citizens" at birth? Isn't that an imposition of involuntary servitude (conscription, civic duties, etc., etc.)?

Perhaps "someone" has failed to inform the people of their legal status as nationals and free inhabitants?

--Jetgraphics 12:10, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Personal tools