Thanks, KW. I look at the US Constitution as shredding the newborn State Constitutions that protected the rights of individuals to provide for themselves through ownership of property and the means of commerce. The US Constitution took away their ability to protect their sovereignty using bills of credit for local exchange. It's all been a predictable (and predicted) consolidation of power over others since then. Here's an episode I posted on it, which you might have already read, since I know and am so grateful you read my ideas! :
Yes, agree State's Rights are a fundamentally important part of the Constitution. Not sure I understand the technicalities so well but that is what is great about the Constitution.
With much love and respect for you, KW, I think the opposite. The Constitution was written to destroy the rights of the States and leapfrog over them to a consolidated government directly over all the people. That's what made handing money creation to the bankers so much easier--the States were forbidden to issue any form of credit for internal trade. So the bankers were given all of our labor for free, while the States were left with responsibility to provide for people's needs with no proactive way to do it. They had to tax the earnings people made from serving the merchant-bankers, instead of simply paying them in the State-generated currency backed by the housing, so they never had to work for the wealthy in the first place.
If that is true then it is my deficient understanding of the Constitution. Some of our founding ancestors were very worried about the merchant-bankers. Such arguments between those siding with Jefferson and those siding with Madison.
Yes! You're exactly right. Those who won were Madison and Hamilton, who had plotted the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation in forcing the Convention from a meeting of merchant-bankers in Annapolis. Everything they did was illegal according to the Articles, which is a fairly uninspired document meant to leave the power to the States. The State Constitutions are where the Bill of Rights is sourced from, but it's a pale shadow written by Madison simply to squash those who wouldn't ratify the Constitution without it. The promise to ratify was made to get their agreement, then he wrote a toothless version to keep them from challenging slavery (which couldn't be changed for a number of years) and forbidding the States to issue their own currencies. We've all been taught a deficient understanding of what happened, you're not alone.
Well, well. Sometimes I hate being right! I wrote a long post earlier this year with lots of video refreshers on all this. The founding ancestors made so many concessions to seal the deal. Improved education in history and civics is necessary for certain.
Thanks, KW. I look at the US Constitution as shredding the newborn State Constitutions that protected the rights of individuals to provide for themselves through ownership of property and the means of commerce. The US Constitution took away their ability to protect their sovereignty using bills of credit for local exchange. It's all been a predictable (and predicted) consolidation of power over others since then. Here's an episode I posted on it, which you might have already read, since I know and am so grateful you read my ideas! :
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup
Yes, agree State's Rights are a fundamentally important part of the Constitution. Not sure I understand the technicalities so well but that is what is great about the Constitution.
With much love and respect for you, KW, I think the opposite. The Constitution was written to destroy the rights of the States and leapfrog over them to a consolidated government directly over all the people. That's what made handing money creation to the bankers so much easier--the States were forbidden to issue any form of credit for internal trade. So the bankers were given all of our labor for free, while the States were left with responsibility to provide for people's needs with no proactive way to do it. They had to tax the earnings people made from serving the merchant-bankers, instead of simply paying them in the State-generated currency backed by the housing, so they never had to work for the wealthy in the first place.
If that is true then it is my deficient understanding of the Constitution. Some of our founding ancestors were very worried about the merchant-bankers. Such arguments between those siding with Jefferson and those siding with Madison.
Yes! You're exactly right. Those who won were Madison and Hamilton, who had plotted the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation in forcing the Convention from a meeting of merchant-bankers in Annapolis. Everything they did was illegal according to the Articles, which is a fairly uninspired document meant to leave the power to the States. The State Constitutions are where the Bill of Rights is sourced from, but it's a pale shadow written by Madison simply to squash those who wouldn't ratify the Constitution without it. The promise to ratify was made to get their agreement, then he wrote a toothless version to keep them from challenging slavery (which couldn't be changed for a number of years) and forbidding the States to issue their own currencies. We've all been taught a deficient understanding of what happened, you're not alone.
Well, well. Sometimes I hate being right! I wrote a long post earlier this year with lots of video refreshers on all this. The founding ancestors made so many concessions to seal the deal. Improved education in history and civics is necessary for certain.