Government

[Goldengirl]

I'm asking for your views on government. What could go wrong, right?

 

Well, to preempt some awful political flaming, I'm actually asking a more broad question than just any political topic about this leader or that legislation. Rather, I'm curious about political theory, in a way that supersedes the day-to-day activities of government while still holding them as possibilities for example and evidence.

 

Speaking generally, what do you believe to be the ideal form of government? If it helps to shape your system of thoughts, what kind of constitutional framework would you set up if you were in control of a new country with resources and political culture to sustain any advanced form of government? I've listed a few preliminary options just to get the ideas flowing, but I'm definitely more interested in the specifics.

 

Personally, I favor democracy, though I used to be far more in favor of a technocratic government. I used to hold a lot of anti-democratic views, and some of them have been retained even yet.

 

Nevertheless, I remain in support of democratic ideals. Ultimately, and from a postmodern perspective, I don't think there is any universal Truth governing any society. This is because truth is always-already constructed and being reconstructed through the social configuration of knowledge. Therefore, it is crucial that all subjective truths be available. All biases, social standpoints, and personal histories completely open to free speech and discourse, simultaneously with safe spaces to serve as rhetorical laboratories. I believe when all perspectives are accounted for, in a truly egalitarian way, then the best debate and discussion can occur in the public sphere. Through agonistic rhetoric, knowledges can clash in a way such that the strongest, most persuasive, (and in a sense, then, most true) ideas can emerge in such a way that the best policies can emerge.

[Level 1 Hermit]

If humans were kind, trusting, and would never war on another

I would abolish all large countries. Biggest a country can be will be as big as Luxembourg. Everyone's government will be a representative democracy. People vote who they want as a representative, each rep will handle (15?) international relations, and each has one vote in the democratic government. Max number of rep is by population size.

 

Countries who do not have a resource may trade with other countries for resource. All countries will pitch in on building their area's highway system. There will be regions of land where it is dedicated to wildlife, no settlement whatsoever. These lands are determined by the United Scientists of the World.

 

Well off countries may donate some value to less well off countries if they want. Understand it is to their benefit because of the universal trade system, unique products, and demand.

 

So democratic republic(Republics) right?

[Sudanna]

As time goes on, I'm more and more convinced that the broad ideological structure of a government is at best tangentially related to its quality.

[Nephil Thief]

I would say representative democracy/republic, with many, many caveats, e.g.

 

- Stringent laws against jerrymandering and other such manipulations of the vote

- Very stringent regulation of what kind of information may be classified

- Likewise, utter prohibition of things like self-gagging gag orders (aka "super injunctions"), and classification of the fact that things are classified

- Health care and higher education as rights, not monetary privileges

- A reliable basic wellfare system, so that people can actually survive a stroke of bad luck

- No provisions for the declaration of martial law under any circumstance

 

There's more (I'm still working on it, honestly) but I think you get the idea. I believe that a working representative democracy is pretty much the best kind of realistic government you can hope for; but also that such systems need strong internal defenses against corruption, ideological takeover, and causes of civil unrest.

 

But note that

- I'm a fairly die-hard liberal

- I'm still working out my own political beliefs

so this is not necessarily set in stone.

[Goldengirl]

As time goes on, I'm more and more convinced that the broad ideological structure of a government is at best tangentially related to its quality.

 

I can fully understand this notion. As much as high ideological values and esteemed principles are cool to think about, the material "real" world gets in the way of that more often than not. The case study I'm most familiar with is the United States, which was immersed in the full rhetoric and philosophy of the Enlightenment, all social contracts and basic human dignities, only to cruelly abuse those rights and disenfranchise many people.

 

Nevertheless, there is surely more than just a correlation between the political culture of a nation and its functioning government, wouldn't you agree? Continuing on the example of the USA, those Enlightenment ideals formed a strong contradiction with the actual running of the state. That contradiction, in Hegelian form, had to be reconciled by a change of ideals or the changing of policies. I'd say this contradiction still exists, but it has undoubtedly gotten better. Slaves are free, women can vote, etc.

 

I suppose, then, the question I'm posing to you is one of the bigger questions relating to political and social philosophy. What is the relationship between ideas and actions?

[Kelandon]

As far as I can tell, this poll seems to be about who you think should be in charge, or how they should be chosen (i.e., republic: people chosen by an aristocracy, monarchy: people who inherited power from ancestors who held power, theocracy: religious leaders, direct democracy: all the people themselves).

 

If so, I'm not altogether sure that you can separate communism, fascism, and dictatorship. Every real-world large-scale communist government has been a dictatorship. So with every fascist government. Communist and fascist governments often formally have a single political party (the Communist Party, the NSDAP, etc.), whereas military dictatorships tend to dispense with the "party" concept altogether, but at the end of the day, the person who controls the government and military apparatus is still a single person responsible to no one.

 

Nor am I particularly clear on what "Federation" has to do with anything here.

 

It seems quite clear that today's complex world requires both technical expertise and popular legitimacy. The US manages this with elections for the legislative and executive branches but appointments based on technical expertise to the judicial and administrative functions, with even more technocratic experts working under the political appointees (and, to a large degree, under the electeds). Whether that's the right way to do it, I don't know, but it seems as though it's hard to find a government that works well without meeting those two requirements for the people in power.

[Alorael at Large]

There is also a difference between the form of government and the policies. You can say that you want a representative democracy and a strong welfare system, but the two are unrelated. You can have totalitarians who happen to dictate welfare (and, in fact, it's a time-tried policy for maintaining enough popular opinion to avoid rebellion), but it's quite possible that the representative democracy won't provide welfare. Like America.

 

—Alorael, who is of the opinion that representative democracy is a very solid system. It could use some constitutional protection against current American-style total deadlock or idiocy, but it's not at all trivial to build that into a constition. Not gerrymandering seems like a reasonable start, but it's just that.

[Edgwyn]

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in the Commons, 1947

 

I would argue that he was referring to a Republican form of government versus a Democratic form of government, since there really have not been any reasonably sized implementations of a Democratic form of government. In the real world I prefer a Republican form of government. In the ideal world, a true Democracy that would not vote itself bread and circuses, or a Dictatorship that allowed individual human rights would be better. In the real world, the differences between a Dictatorship, Theocracy, absolute Monarchy, Communist State, Anarchist State and Technocracy tend to disappear. Also in the real world, most Monarchies have become essentially republics and many republics (like the US) have moved closer to Democracies than what their constitutions (for those of us who have them) originally envisioned.

[Questionably Legal]

Democracy is an experiment, and the right of the majority to rule is no more inherent than the right of the minority to rule; and unless the majority represents sane, righteous, unselfish public sentiment, it has no inherent right. ~William Allen White

 

Goverment is a problem that can't be solved, only reshaped. Not that anarchy is any better.

[Callie]

I favor representative democracies with large welfare states. I am what is generally considered as far left in terms of social issues, but I'm unconvinced as to what the best economic system is. I ultimately am satisfied if the economic system is able to provide every one of its citizens with an acceptable standard of living without infringing on the well-being of other populations. I'm not sure that actually exists in the present. Ideally, we would have a world government that could minimize humanity's suffering, but to most that sounds like a pipe dream.

[Lilith]

plz have me declared uncontested queen of the world so that i can organise a global space program to hurl the earth into the sun

 

nah but seriously if i have any value that i'd like to see made into an organising principle for society it's "nobody should be dependent for their survival on the goodwill or competence of any one person or group, including themselves". in practice that probably makes me something resembling an anarcho-communist

[Nephil Thief]

@Lilith: I've met people who tend to dismiss injustice with a comment along the lines of, "life's unfair, deal with it." My usual response is that the whole point of human civilization is to make life more fair. So yeah, I really like that idea, especially the "including themselves" part.

 

OTOH I (personally) tend to shy away from anything outspokenly "anarcho" or "communist," mostly because of

 

a) How we get there from here. From what I've read and heard it typically is supposed to involve revolution, which has an extensive record of not working. Also I have a vested interest in not winding up with my head on a pike, seeing people I love murdered before my eyes, etc.

 

I know this isn't how all anarchist and communist outlooks work, but rationalization is universal; and "ends justify the means" thinking is common enough everywhere to make me a tad frightened when people talk about rapidly overthrowing the current social order, which brings me to

 

Rhetoric. Some people more or less on my side of the political spectrum are prone to talk about "destroying the institutions" and such. I get that this refers to the institutions of oppression, the system rather than the institutions of any government. But if we're going to look into the language and what it implies... Well, whenever I see someone using terminology evocative of violence, I have to wonder why, even if that person claims to be the most anti-war, anti-statist pacifist ever.

 

I guess I tend to think that the jargon is evocative of violence for the same reason that most curse words are evocative of sexism. Granted we're all influenced by bad ideas from time to time; but when the same terminology crops up again and again, I feel like some skepticism might be called for.

 

tl;dr I'm a wimpo-socialist. (And I hope I haven't gone too far into political territory with this post.)

 

Edit: and oh geeze I hope I don't look like I'm trying to intimidate you about your political viewpoints, because that was totally not my intent. Argh.

[Lilith]

Edit: and oh geeze I hope I don't look like I'm trying to intimidate you about your political viewpoints, because that was totally not my intent. Argh.

 

do i strike you as easily intimidated

 

seriously don't worry about it

[keira]

My (somewhat brief and continuing) experience with the general public has shown me that the average person is a selfish, blithering idiot. Maybe that's just me being cynical, but I would rather not have control by the majority if the majority is an idiot.

 

The solution is to clearly educate the majority. Too bad the majority doesn't want to pay to be educated :|

 

I'm a fan of technocracy. The people most qualified to be calling the shots should be calling the shots. I wonder how many polotitians today know how to do anything other than politics. The sad thing is most lawmakers don't understand the topics they are making laws about.

 

The big problem is determining who is qualified. And the usual government corruption and such, but that's not unique to one form of government.

Edited August 5, 2014 by sylae
especially as a person in a couple minorities, i am aware the majority have to pretty much be forced to treat people not like them as humans

[Necris Omega]

Communism? I'm pretty absolute on this one - it does not, will not, and can never work. Marx was an idealistic dreamer who was unfortunately completely divorced from the realities of human nature. Sorry Karl, but for every man who wants to produce, there's a legion who'd be happy sitting naked in a beanbag chair eating cheetos.

 

Republics are... alright, but even in the best of today's there's still room for improvement. Not that that's a bad thing mind you - no one wants to think their society has peaked.

 

Direct Democracy? ... Well, it's very good at giving everyone an equal say, but I fear it just plain runs into too many practical problems to really work, especially when you start talking national scale. Imagine 1 Billion Indians or Chinese voting on every single government measure. Sure, technology can make this much less impossible, but it's still such a tall order that I have to be skeptical.

 

Monarchy? Eh... that's just an extremely mature tribal hereditary dictatorship with some theocratic overtones. Blech.

 

Dictatorship? ... Has this system of government ever gone or ended well?

 

Anarchist Society? Again, I've too much faith in the capacity of human nature to devolve into tribal barbarism in the absence of systems to counteract this tendency.

 

Theocracy? While I consider myself to be fairly religious, I find Theocracy abhorrent. A person's relationship to God should be between them and God, not because of some Government Edict.

 

Federation? As an American, my own national history throws water on this one. Perhaps they've worked better elsewhere when better organized and empowered, however.

 

Fascist State? While I generally see Government as a force to counteract the evils inherent in mankind, this only seems to exacerbate them.

 

Technocracy? I WILL NEVER BOW TO YOU ROBOTIC FIEN-- oh, wait. That's not what that means. Ultimately this begs, as was asked, the question of determinacy, which starts impinging on other forms of government. If we the people decide who is the most fit to rule, well we're back in Democracy town, for instance.

[Goldengirl]

Dictatorship? ... Has this system of government ever gone or ended well?

 

I don't agree with some of your blanket assertions about how humans work, but that's ultimately just a difference in opinions. This is a question of history, though, so I'm glad to answer.

 

Sorta. It really depends on whom the system goes well for. The answer, generally speaking, is yes, kinda. There have been reigns of dictatorships that weren't particularly worse than any other system of government in place. Of course, there were also terrible ones too, as one would expect. The idea of a benevolent dictatorship, though, isn't entirely without merit.

[Nephil Thief]

@Sylae, personally I'd argue against assuming malice and stupidity when ignorance, rationalization, and fear might suffice.

 

i.e.

 

Ignorance: I was brought up with the idea that persecuting certain people was okay, and was never seriously motivated to question that ingrained belief.

 

Rationalization: If I'm unfairly persecuting someone, that would mean I was a bad person, and I cannot possibly be a bad person (because my intentions are good, I've done good things by people before, whatever).

 

Fear: If I'm doing the wrong thing, and therefore a bad person, I deserve bad things done to me.

 

Between those I think there's a lot incentive for essentially kind-hearted people to behave in a totally messed up fashion. That said I'm coming at this from pretty different different situation, so I might not quite get it.

[Alorael at Large]

The problem with politicians is that they don't necessarily know anything about the stuff they're making laws about. The problem with not having politicians is that then all your laws are made by people who don't really understand laws and government.

 

—Alorael, who has to say, with the understanding that it's now trite, that the current political class in the US Capitol really makes the case for not having a political class.

[Tyranicus]

Dictatorship? ... Has this system of government ever gone or ended well?

It worked fairly well for the Roman Empire at times. Of course, there were times when it did not, but you asked if it had ever gone well, not if it always did.

[Kelandon]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a system of government that ended well.

[Necris Omega]

Perhaps the Articles of Confederation? Though I'm sure the debate of that being a full on system vs. specific format of a system has merit, their dissolution led to a more effective and stronger US government and did so without the usual bloody upheavals common to major government overhauls throughout history.

[Sudanna]

Yeah, that was not the elimination of a government, that was reform. Radical reform, sure, but nothing was destroyed. Also, I would remind you that there totally was an armed rebellion against the US under the Articles. People died and everything.

[Quiconque]

There are other examples of positive dictatorships, too, like some of the Greek tyrannies.

 

I don't buy that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do, however, think that most people who would SEEK absolute power in the first place are already corrupt. That's the problem. But there's nothing that says that only jerks can be dictators. I can think of any number of world leaders by whom I'd be quite happy to be dictated to. I guess this is why I'm so fond of the ending of Nephil's Gambit.

[Alorael at Large]

That's the basic problem with democratic politics, too. People who seek power, even if it's diluted across many people, would often not really be anyone's first choice for power-holder. And the more of a cesspool the system becomes the less likely it is that anyone really good for the position will want to wade in. Eventually it becomes a vicious cycle of political one-downmanship until, ideally, everyone gets so fed up that the idealists go in out of a desire to fix things and the scum get voted out because everyone's totally fed up.

 

—Alorael, who sees the risk as voters focusing too hard on cleaning house and not hard enough on exactly what they're replacing the problem with. It's possible for incompetent, unrealistic idealism to be worse than pragmatic, functional small-mindedness/cronyism/corruption.

[Goldengirl]

There are other examples of positive dictatorships, too, like some of the Greek tyrannies.

 

I don't buy that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do, however, think that most people who would SEEK absolute power in the first place are already corrupt. That's the problem. But there's nothing that says that only jerks can be dictators. I can think of any number of world leaders by whom I'd be quite happy to be dictated to. I guess this is why I'm so fond of the ending of Nephil's Gambit.

 

There's this cool Roman myth of this rich farmer named Cincinnatus*, who was selected to become the Dictator of the Roman Republic during a time of crisis. He dutifully led the Romans through war successfully, earning the admiration of his peers. He would have been able to be Rome's first emperor, most likely. However, after the war was over, he absolved power and restored the Republic. Because of that humility and lack of corruption, he was held by many to be the ideal Roman man.

 

That's the basic problem with democratic politics, too. People who seek power, even if it's diluted across many people, would often not really be anyone's first choice for power-holder. And the more of a cesspool the system becomes the less likely it is that anyone really good for the position will want to wade in. Eventually it becomes a vicious cycle of political one-downmanship until, ideally, everyone gets so fed up that the idealists go in out of a desire to fix things and the scum get voted out because everyone's totally fed up.

 

I know this is a really out there approach that would be a very big departure from anything any modern state has done. However, in ancient Athens, they chose their representatives in the Assembly through lottery, to prevent this sort of corruption. That was also the reason that they utilized ostracism, to banish politicians who were becoming too power hungry and thus might threaten their early democratic ideals. What do you think of that kind of system?

 

To throw in my own two cents, it may actually be a lot more successful in a modern context than would be immediately obvious. Most politicians, as has been previously stated, aren't well-versed in all of the mechanics of each bill. These politicians are, however, often times lawyers, so they have an intimate understanding of at least some aspect of the law. This could be fixed by having more extensive political science and rhetoric lessons in the educational system, but that would surely face an opportunity cost of its own.

 

*America's Founding Fathers had a weird obsession with him, because they wanted to make America the new Roman Republic if I had to guess. They founded an Order of Cincinnatus for veterans from the Revolution, plus they decided for some reason to build a city on the blight of land that became Cincinnati.

[Edgwyn]

It would be interesting to try the lottery system, though in many ways it reminds me of Jury Duty in the US where anyone competent to serve on a Jury finds a way out and you end up awarding millions of dollars to someone who stuck a cup of hot coffee between her legs. If I were to go down the lottery system bunny trail, I would have some qualifications which would get us a little closer to the technocracy. You would end up having to have advisors for the temporary politicians, just like Congress has staffs now, with the concern that the unelected (any in many cases un-regulated) staffers would gain even more power than they have today.

 

There would of course be a lot of concern over the qualifications (age, education level, success in chosen profession?). Would you open it to all professions? 18 and over like voting age or keep the constitutional age requirements? If someone is unsuccessful, do you really want them governing you, but how do you define success?

[Quiconque]

The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was actually a surprisingly reasonable lawsuit. Seriously, it doesn't deserve the reputation it has. Look it up!

[Tyranicus]

There's this cool Roman myth of this rich farmer named Cincinnatus*, who was selected to become the Dictator of the Roman Republic during a time of crisis. He dutifully led the Romans through war successfully, earning the admiration of his peers. He would have been able to be Rome's first emperor, most likely. However, after the war was over, he absolved power and restored the Republic. Because of that humility and lack of corruption, he was held by many to be the ideal Roman man.

For some reason, Cincinnatus is held up as exceptional for this, when it was standard Roman policy. He was neither the first nor the last man appointed dictator of Rome (which was an actual job title) who stepped down after serving his term.

[Sudanna]

There's this cool Roman myth of this rich farmer named Cincinnatus*, who was selected to become the Dictator of the Roman Republic during a time of crisis. He dutifully led the Romans through war successfully, earning the admiration of his peers. He would have been able to be Rome's first emperor, most likely. However, after the war was over, he absolved power and restored the Republic. Because of that humility and lack of corruption, he was held by many to be the ideal Roman man.

 

For some reason, Cincinnatus is held up as exceptional for this, when it was standard Roman policy. He was neither the first nor the last man appointed dictator of Rome (which was an actual job title) who stepped down after serving his term.

 

Not exactly a myth, he was a real guy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators

 

Everyone on that list up to Julius Caesar either gave up their power or died in the middle of serving in the office and almost certainly -would- have given it up. Even Sulla, who was a bloodthirsty tyrant that emptied Rome of every conceivably threatening populari by posting lists of people he would pay you to kill in public squares and dismantled all legal development from the last 200 years of the republic, gave up the dictatorship. Him trying to do so much in so little time is probably why it all immediately fell apart, too. It's not exactly a mark against Caesar that he appointed himself dictator for life - the republic had just gone through two generations of full civil war and was effectively broken, and the attempted reforms of the last guy (who had a directly opposed ideology as well, but still) failed because Sulla didn't take his time. Caesar was actually a merciful and fair reformist autocrat.

[Necris Omega]

Yeah, that was not the elimination of a government, that was reform. Radical reform, sure, but nothing was destroyed. Also, I would remind you that there totally was an armed rebellion against the US under the Articles. People died and everything.

 

Eh, the argument isn't the end of a government, rather the end of a system of government. When you reset the fundamental mode and form of your government, going from a loosely united confederation to a more centralized federal government, it's still the end of that previous form.

 

As to pre-constitutional rebellion - I'm only aware of a conflict regarding back pay to soldiers being demanded in advance, and nothing specific to "Save the confederacy" in terms of armed conflict.

[Quiconque]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

[Kennedy]

Rather disappointing that there was no option for "socialist democracy" as that is what I would have chosen.

[Kelandon]

Socialism is beside the point. This poll isn't asking whether you're left or right of center. But the fact that there's no option for representative democracy (unless that is what is meant by "republic," which isn't really accurate) is a pretty glaring flaw.

[Goldengirl]

Republic is a term with a lot of baggage, and I chose it intentionally.

 

In my youth, I naively thought republic meant representative democracy. However, looking at the history of the term, it's clearly a lot more muddled. Plato's Republic, for instance, isn't a representative democracy, nor was the Roman Res Publica. Broadly, it was a catchall term for "not-monarchy," making it ridiculously broad. This broadness s seen even today; the radical differences between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Federal Republic of the United States of America all demonstrate that.

 

Thus, I was hoping broadly that people would define it as they wished and elucidate in their answers. As I said originally, I just wanted the poll to serve as a jumping off point for people.

[Alorael at Large]

What countries call themselves does not necessarily resemble that country. At all. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic, not a republic even by broad definition, and not run by the people. To its credit, it is in fact Korea.

 

—Alorael, who in fairness will note that the Republic of Ghana is a republic but was not, at the time of its naming, actually territory ever held by the preceding empire of the same name.

[Upon Mars.]

Communism? I'm pretty absolute on this one - it does not, will not, and can never work. Marx was an idealistic dreamer who was unfortunately completely divorced from the realities of human nature. Sorry Karl, but for every man who wants to produce, there's a legion who'd be happy sitting naked in a beanbag chair eating cheetos.

 

Has a communist state ever existed? I thought 20th century Stalinism was promoting a socialist state.

 

My (somewhat brief and continuing) experience with the general public has shown me that the average person is a selfish, blithering idiot. Maybe that's just me being cynical, but I would rather not have control by the majority if the majority is an idiot.

 

The solution is to clearly educate the majority. Too bad the majority doesn't want to pay to be educated :|

 

I'm a fan of technocracy. The people most qualified to be calling the shots should be calling the shots. I wonder how many polotitians today know how to do anything other than politics. The sad thing is most lawmakers don't understand the topics they are making laws about.

 

The big problem is determining who is qualified. And the usual government corruption and such, but that's not unique to one form of government.

 

Although it's great to have an educated public, what about structural problems of a political regimes how is this only a problem of education?

[Travisbmoore]

My idea of a technocracy would be to have a Republic form of government but have AI quantum computers as assistancts to our politicians and to give recomendations and inform them on all new technologies and energy and things/ Kind of like artificialy smart advisers to senators and congressmen as well as the president and supreem court and to know everything about the founders of the republic and all contectual data for making informed decisions. Eventualy the computer may learn to advise so well the elected politicians may listen to the Quantum computer Artificial intellegence devices. We need AI in government as some many lack Actual intellegence.

[Dintiradan]

[Travisbmoore]

Quick somebody remove the completely inept disadvantage from Barak Obama.

[adc.]

The main difference between the parties is how to go about their goals. Both parties want the same things, but disagree as to the means. In general, republicans want people and businesses to be free from government restraints, and democrats believe that government is often the best solution for our nations problems.

 

Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061028091020AAuFy8a

 

FOR THE REPUBLIC!!!

-Jedi of the Old Republic

 

I'm not knowledgeable about these political stuff, as I only follow my own principles about authority. That I subject myself to higher powers. That doesn't mean I will tolerate abuse, but it means my general attitude towards authority should be respect.

[Harehunter]

Oath of Commissioned Officer

 

"I, ____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

[Harehunter]

I took that oath, and I have never been released from it. Note, that I have sworn to protect the Constitution. Not the president, not congress, The Law of the Land.This document outlines the limited powers of the Federal Republic in order to form a more perfect union between the sovereign States. Yes, they are still sovereign for they are each a republic within their own borders.

 

In addition to defining the powers to be vested in this federal government, certain rights and Liberties were defined as well in the first ten amendments to this Constitution. And again, to emphasize the sovereignty of the individual States, the 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

[Quiconque]

And in the later amendments as well, which are just as much a part of the Constitution.

 

There are a lot of interesting nuances in the federalist/anti-federalist debates, and in the issues of states' rights and federal power as they have played out over the centuries. But "each a republic within their own borders" is, while maybe technically correct for some definitions of "republic", not really accurate on the whole, particularly not today. Some of the powers given to the federal government (all but uncontestedly, since the Civil War) are central and basic to any sovereign state: foreign relations, for example. And the implied powers (expressly allowed by the framers, who debated this point in particular) related to regulation of interstate commerce, among other areas, allow for many, many things to be federally regulated. "Sovereignty" isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, of course, but but if we're talking about partial sovereignty, let's just call it partial sovereignty and not pretend it's something it isn't.

[Nephil Thief]

... I have to say I'm a little disturbed by the combination of specificity ("defend the Constitution") and vagueness ("against all enemies, foreign and domestic") in that oath. With that wording, it seems like almost any civil rights activist could be considered a "domestic enemy" if they supported a Constitutional amendment.

[Edgwyn]

Supporting an amendment to the constitution would not violate the oath, since there is a specific process in place to amend the constitution. Trying to change the constitution by extra-legal means would be a problem. If you look at the 1950s/1960s civil rights movement, the best protection that kids going to school received was from individuals who had sworn that oath.

 

The interstate commerce clause has been stretched to the point that it has almost completely eliminated the 9th and 10th amendments. The part of me that prefers efficiency is happy about that, the part of me that prefers individual freedom is not.

 

The oath that commissioned officers of the US Armed Forces take is the same as that taken by US Senators and Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices and other Federal employees. The working is slightly different from that of the President which is specified in the constitution. The requirement for our oath (but not its wording) comes from Article 6 of the constitution. The wording of our oath was established by congress over 150 years ago.

[Kelandon]

The interstate commerce clause has been stretched to the point that it has almost completely eliminated the 9th and 10th amendments. The part of me that prefers efficiency is happy about that, the part of me that prefers individual freedom is not.

That's not quite right. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were never invoked to protect much of anything even before the revolution in Commerce Clause doctrine in the 1930's. For example, McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 said: "the 10th amendment to the constitution is merely declaratory" (that is, it doesn't protect any particular rights in any enforceable way). The Ninth Amendment was cited in a grand total of one case before the 20th century, and that case said merely that it did not have any impact on the power of the states — owing to the fact that the Bill of Rights, at the time, did not restrict the states.

 

Also, the expansion in Commerce Clause power largely gave the federal government more ability to regulate things that the states already had power to regulate. That is, the question is which government has the power, not whether government has the power. The connection between that and "individual freedom" is, to say the least, not completely clear.

[Quiconque]

The expansion also largely made sense. 200 years ago, travel was slow and communication required travel. It was possible to achieve consistent regulations for an area, simply by regulating that area by itself. Today, there are people who cross state boundaries on a daily basis; nearly everyone receives communication from across state boundaries on a daily basis; and internet transactions make location increasingly irrelevant. It's simply not possible to achieve consistent regulations without implementing them on a national basis.

 

Of course, "consistent regulations" may not always be the end goal, but in cases where it's important, there's no way around this need.