7 ms·

The United States tried being a loose federation under the Articles of Confederation. It was a miserable failure, which led to the current Constitution, which w

The United States tried being a loose federation under the Articles of Confederation. It was a miserable failure, which led to the current Constitution, which was set up with the intention of creating a federal government strong enough to carry out essentially any function necessary to the success of the country. The United States has been a resounding success under the Constitution, growing to become the most powerful and richest nation in the world, and one of the most desirable nations for immigrants.

rayiner 9y ago
The articles of confederation failed because they couldn’t ensure adequate funding for the federal government to guarantee internal and external security. Reading more into it than that is ahistorical. The Constitution sought to remedy that, but decidedly did not intend to grant the federal government power to carry out “any function necessary to the success of the country.” Education for example is necessary to the success of the country, but was then and still is now a state issue. Complete economic integration is not necessary to provision a common defense (e.g. NATO). Inclusion of the Commerce Clause was instead a bit of a submarine trap. While the Constitution was sold to States on the theory that they would continue to be mostly sovereign, having ceded only narrow powers to the federal government, taking away states’ power to control cross-border trade left them castrated. Today, they’re mostly irrelevant except for the layer of inefficiency they add to the whole system. Economic success isn’t the only concern (and there is no evidence that less economic integration wouldn’t have led to just as much success, and European countries are plenty prosperous with historically far less economic integration). At bottom, people were promised that they wouldn’t become one completely integrated country, but the Constitutional design made that promise a dead letter from the beginning.
- rlanday 9y ago
  > The articles of confederation failed because they couldn’t ensure adequate funding for the federal government to guarantee internal and external security. Reading more into it than that is ahistorical. The Constitution sought to remedy that, but decidedly did not intend to grant the federal government power to carry out “any function necessary to the success of the country.” Education for example is necessary to the success of the country, but was then and still is now a state issue. It was meant to give the federal government all the powers necessary for the federal government to have to make the country successful. Hence the "necessary and proper" clause. You're of course correct that many functions have been successfully left to the states. NATO would not work without the United States. It has the same issues the US had under the Articles of Confederation where members try to weasel out of their commitments: http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-co... The EU is not stable, has a terrible problem with border security, and the lack of economic integration is certainly a problem (e.g. look at Greece), so I don't think that's an example to aspire to.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > It was meant to give the federal government all the powers necessary for the federal government to have to make the country successful. Hence the "necessary and proper" clause The Necessary and Proper clause says: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The "foregoing Powers" refers to the preceding text in Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress power to do things like "provide and maintain a Navy." So Congress has the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper [to provide and maintain a Navy], ..." It does not have the power to make laws "necessary and proper" generally. The basic design of the government is flawed. It's supposed to be a federal system, with a limited federal government that provides for a common defense, regulates the currency, etc., but where the states build the roads, provide police services, etc. That was how the Constitution was sold to the public before it was ratified. But depriving states to control their borders makes that idea unworkable in practice, because it creates a prisoner's dilemma situation. E.g., everyone might want universal healthcare, but each state has an incentive to let the other states do it, and simply let people cross the border for treatment when they get sick. Or, it might be the case that investing in education helps businesses to have a competent work force, but each state has an incentive to let the other states foot the bill, and lure businesses and educated workers after the fact through low taxes. To provide the services people expect from a modern first-world country, then, the federal government is then forced to give up federalism. It has to dramatically overstep the limited role it was originally envisioned as having.

rayiner 9y ago

The articles of confederation failed because they couldn’t ensure adequate funding for the federal government to guarantee internal and external security. Reading more into it than that is ahistorical. The Constitution sought to remedy that, but decidedly did not intend to grant the federal government power to carry out “any function necessary to the success of the country.” Education for example is necessary to the success of the country, but was then and still is now a state issue. Complete economic integration is not necessary to provision a common defense (e.g. NATO). Inclusion of the Commerce Clause was instead a bit of a submarine trap. While the Constitution was sold to States on the theory that they would continue to be mostly sovereign, having ceded only narrow powers to the federal government, taking away states’ power to control cross-border trade left them castrated. Today, they’re mostly irrelevant except for the layer of inefficiency they add to the whole system. Economic success isn’t the only concern (and there is no evidence that less economic integration wouldn’t have led to just as much success, and European countries are plenty prosperous with historically far less economic integration). At bottom, people were promised that they wouldn’t become one completely integrated country, but the Constitutional design made that promise a dead letter from the beginning.

rlanday 9y ago
> The articles of confederation failed because they couldn’t ensure adequate funding for the federal government to guarantee internal and external security. Reading more into it than that is ahistorical. The Constitution sought to remedy that, but decidedly did not intend to grant the federal government power to carry out “any function necessary to the success of the country.” Education for example is necessary to the success of the country, but was then and still is now a state issue. It was meant to give the federal government all the powers necessary for the federal government to have to make the country successful. Hence the "necessary and proper" clause. You're of course correct that many functions have been successfully left to the states. NATO would not work without the United States. It has the same issues the US had under the Articles of Confederation where members try to weasel out of their commitments: http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-co... The EU is not stable, has a terrible problem with border security, and the lack of economic integration is certainly a problem (e.g. look at Greece), so I don't think that's an example to aspire to.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > It was meant to give the federal government all the powers necessary for the federal government to have to make the country successful. Hence the "necessary and proper" clause The Necessary and Proper clause says: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The "foregoing Powers" refers to the preceding text in Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress power to do things like "provide and maintain a Navy." So Congress has the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper [to provide and maintain a Navy], ..." It does not have the power to make laws "necessary and proper" generally. The basic design of the government is flawed. It's supposed to be a federal system, with a limited federal government that provides for a common defense, regulates the currency, etc., but where the states build the roads, provide police services, etc. That was how the Constitution was sold to the public before it was ratified. But depriving states to control their borders makes that idea unworkable in practice, because it creates a prisoner's dilemma situation. E.g., everyone might want universal healthcare, but each state has an incentive to let the other states do it, and simply let people cross the border for treatment when they get sick. Or, it might be the case that investing in education helps businesses to have a competent work force, but each state has an incentive to let the other states foot the bill, and lure businesses and educated workers after the fact through low taxes. To provide the services people expect from a modern first-world country, then, the federal government is then forced to give up federalism. It has to dramatically overstep the limited role it was originally envisioned as having.