3 ms·

> The US has essentially never existed in this form. From the moment of its founding, it has been a federal, democratic republic. this isn't true at all, what

> The US has essentially never existed in this form. From the moment of its founding, it has been a federal, democratic republic. this isn't true at all, what about the first US constitution: The Articles of Confederation? Article II stated that the States are sovereign (bar delegated powers), and Article IV established freedom of movement and freedom of capital essentially the same structure as the current EU (with many of the same flaws)

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
err, excuse me .. before the first US constitution (barring a few years when things were really up in the air), the "united states" was a wholly owned colony of Great Britain. If you're a historical revisionist, you could make the claim that the separate colonies constituted separate nations before the AoC, but I wouldn't agree with you. The AoC formed a nation, post-revolution, and formed it out of states. I would read Article IV as preventing the elimination of freedom of movement and capital, because when it was enacted there was honestly little to no barriers to either already in place. The EEC/EU was preceded by nations, continues to feature nations (1) and still has no actual federal structure (though quite a lot of Europeans wish it had more, and quite a lot of other Europeans wish it had less). (1) consider how easy it was for even the Schengen zone nations to close their borders and think about how difficult it would be for a state to do the same.
- blibble 6y ago
  > err, excuse me .. before the first US constitution (barring a few years when things were really up in the air), the "united states" was a wholly owned colony of Great Britain I don't remember claiming otherwise > If you're a historical revisionist, you could make the claim that the separate colonies constituted separate nations before the AoC, but I wouldn't agree with you I didn't claim this either my only point was EU is not unique, it's a confederation and there have been many throughout history, several with freedom of movement and capital, including the rather well known United States (post-AoC but pre-federalisation) you may disagree, but that would be historical revisionism
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    pre-1776: no independent nations, just colonies of GB 1776: revolution 1777: AoC draft complete 1781: AoC adopted by all 13 states 1789: Federalization I hate to quote Wikipedia, but: Little changed politically once the Articles of Confederation went into effect, as ratification did little more than legalize what the Continental Congress had been doing. That body was renamed the Congress of the Confederation; but most Americans continued to call it the Continental Congress, since its organization remained the same So basically we're disagreeing over whether or not a 12 (or 8) year period between 1777 (or arguably, 1781) and 1789 represents a confederation in which the concepts of free movement of labor and capital existed in a way at least somewhat analogous to the way they do in the EEC/EU. I'd say they do not. Given that Wealth of Nations was only published in 1776, I'm not even sure that these concepts existed clearly in the minds of most of the people it would have to existed in in order for the post-AoC-pre-federal USA to be usefully said to be anything like the EU.
    - blibble 6y ago
      > I'd say they do not so you're disagreeing that the following sentence establishes freedom of movement and capital? > the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively ok
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        I'm saying that this text did nothing more than codify what was already true. If I have that wrong, please let me know.
        blibble 6y ago
        never said otherwise (again)

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

err, excuse me .. before the first US constitution (barring a few years when things were really up in the air), the "united states" was a wholly owned colony of Great Britain. If you're a historical revisionist, you could make the claim that the separate colonies constituted separate nations before the AoC, but I wouldn't agree with you. The AoC formed a nation, post-revolution, and formed it out of states. I would read Article IV as preventing the elimination of freedom of movement and capital, because when it was enacted there was honestly little to no barriers to either already in place. The EEC/EU was preceded by nations, continues to feature nations (1) and still has no actual federal structure (though quite a lot of Europeans wish it had more, and quite a lot of other Europeans wish it had less). (1) consider how easy it was for even the Schengen zone nations to close their borders and think about how difficult it would be for a state to do the same.

blibble 6y ago
> err, excuse me .. before the first US constitution (barring a few years when things were really up in the air), the "united states" was a wholly owned colony of Great Britain I don't remember claiming otherwise > If you're a historical revisionist, you could make the claim that the separate colonies constituted separate nations before the AoC, but I wouldn't agree with you I didn't claim this either my only point was EU is not unique, it's a confederation and there have been many throughout history, several with freedom of movement and capital, including the rather well known United States (post-AoC but pre-federalisation) you may disagree, but that would be historical revisionism
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  pre-1776: no independent nations, just colonies of GB 1776: revolution 1777: AoC draft complete 1781: AoC adopted by all 13 states 1789: Federalization I hate to quote Wikipedia, but: Little changed politically once the Articles of Confederation went into effect, as ratification did little more than legalize what the Continental Congress had been doing. That body was renamed the Congress of the Confederation; but most Americans continued to call it the Continental Congress, since its organization remained the same So basically we're disagreeing over whether or not a 12 (or 8) year period between 1777 (or arguably, 1781) and 1789 represents a confederation in which the concepts of free movement of labor and capital existed in a way at least somewhat analogous to the way they do in the EEC/EU. I'd say they do not. Given that Wealth of Nations was only published in 1776, I'm not even sure that these concepts existed clearly in the minds of most of the people it would have to existed in in order for the post-AoC-pre-federal USA to be usefully said to be anything like the EU.
  - blibble 6y ago
    > I'd say they do not so you're disagreeing that the following sentence establishes freedom of movement and capital? > the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively ok
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      I'm saying that this text did nothing more than codify what was already true. If I have that wrong, please let me know.
      - blibble 6y ago
        never said otherwise (again)