Opinion of the Articles of Confederation

[All Along The Watchtower]

Clearly the single greatest piece of writing in human history. Why else would the Rev. Dr. Ron Paul quote it?

[RogueBeaver]

Awful, useless, pathetic.

[Marnetmar]

Well, they tried I guess. Still HP.

[Maxwell]

Awful, useless, pathetic.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Laughable.

[TDAS04]

Laughable.

[ElectionsGuy]

Clearly the single greatest piece of writing in human history. Why else would the Rev. Dr. Ron Paul quote it?

Clearly the single greatest piece of writing in human history. Why else would the Rev. Dr. Ron Paul quote it?

No

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Would have worked then if the circumstances were right, but I think the constitution gets it right.

[H. Ross Peron]

Awful, useless, pathetic.

[TJ in Oregon]

A necessary step to get it right with the Constitution. Freedom Articles in that we learned from them.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Readopting the articles would certainly be an interesting way of tackling the deficit. It would be unique and innovative. An ideas from a truly entrepreneurial politician that is clearly required.

[SPC]

Clearly the superior governing document for those that care about restricting the scope of government.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Clearly the superior governing document for those that care about restricting the scope usefulness of government.

Ftfy. Whether or not Libertarians want to admit it, the Federal Government is a necessary thing. After all, Somalia seems to be struggling just a bit at the moment.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Clearly the superior governing document for those that care about restricting the scope of government.

Yeah but I don't care about that so what have you done FOR ME recently?

[Sopranos Republican]

Awful, useless, pathetic.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Horrible.  They were good in theory, but they limited the government too much.  Ever heard of Shays's Rebellion?

[Darth Plagueis]

Clearly the superior governing document for those that care about restricting the scope of government.

Agreed.

[Rooney]

They were excellent. They led the United States through the Revolutionary War after all. I can see why nationalists who want America to be an empire would hate them. The articles did not even recognize the "United States of America" as a massive amalgamation called a "nation." Instead it respected the rights of states. I cannot argue that this is a bad idea for those of us who are not nationalists hungry for government to run every aspect of our lives.

[Darth Plagueis]

They were excellent. They led the United States through the Revolutionary War after all. I can see why nationalists who want America to be an empire would hate them. The articles did not even recognize the "United States of America" as a massive amalgamation called a "nation." Instead it respected the rights of states. I cannot argue that this is a bad idea for those of us who are not nationalists hungry for government to run every aspect of our lives.

Agreed.

[SPC]

Clearly the superior governing document for those that care about restricting the scope usefulness of government.

Ftfy. Whether or not Libertarians want to admit it, the Federal Government is a necessary thing. After all, Somalia seems to be struggling just a bit at the moment.

Somalia being a fourth-world African country ravaged by various stronger imperial powers and a reactionary religious faction wouldn't have anything to do with that, would it? In any case, what specifically can the federal government accomplish that the state of California could not? If you can provide an answer, I shall take that as an endorsement of an invasion and annexation of Canada, as they have a smaller population than California and thus must be in a state of complete anarchy.

[barfbag]

Ideally this is what we want, but it's not practical for holding a more perfect union in tact especially in the times we're living in now. The federal government should have authority over the states. Having said that it goes way too far.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

what specifically can the federal government accomplish that the state of California could not? If you can provide an answer, I shall take that as an endorsement of an invasion and annexation of Canada, as they have a smaller population than California and thus must be in a state of complete anarchy.

That's such a selfish way of thinking though. "Oh well each individual state is better off without the Government" (disregarding the fact that secession is unconstitutional and likely will never happen without a civil war part 2) Just because a state can do something, doesn't mean they should. Even the Founding Fathers believed that the Federal Government should be the supreme governing body, and they were plutocratic racists who started a war because they were being taxed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

what specifically can the federal government accomplish that the state of California could not? If you can provide an answer, I shall take that as an endorsement of an invasion and annexation of Canada, as they have a smaller population than California and thus must be in a state of complete anarchy.

That's such a selfish way of thinking though. "Oh well each individual state is better off without the Government" (disregarding the fact that secession is unconstitutional and likely will never happen without a civil war part 2) Just because a state can do something, doesn't mean they should. Even the Founding Fathers believed that the Federal Government should be the supreme governing body, and they were plutocratic racists who started a war because they were being taxed.

  Even I, who often refers to the American Revolution as a tax revolt, have to take askance at that.  While taxation was a major issue, it was hardly the only issue.

It is true that the Constitution was not the only solution, dissolving the Confederation was another option.  As a national government it was a failure.