Power. Who has it?
Let's look at the Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence. In it the Signers point out that in self-evident truth, "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That so secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."
This document explicitly points out that the Power comes from the governed... the people. To imply that the Articles gave any power to the States is a wrong assumption. The Articles, like our current Bill of Rights, give nothing to the people. The Articles as well as the current Constitution LIMIT the central government. They can not give what they do not own. The people own the power. Only the people can give power as it is the people who possess the power.
I keep coming back to the sovereignty issue because it is the foundation of the individual being a free man or woman. We each own ourselves. We own our bodies, our intelligence, our creative thinking and our dreams. These things make man... man.
As men gather in groups, society takes shape. The concept of giving up some individual freedoms for the sake of group harmony comes about. Councils are formed by the concent of those involved to resolve disputes that will arise. Those powers of the council are limited to only resolving disputes. Those councils have no moral standing to exceed the power vested to them by the group.
Groups merge and form colonies and then the States. At each point, the individuals that comprise each colony and then State vest a limited amount of power to those selected by the people to deal with disputes.
States evolve to the point that they see the benefits of mutual cooperation. They come together under the instruction of those who sent (the collective of individual, sovereign human beings) to resolve disputes between the different States that will arise as they work together for mutual benefit.
The Articles came short simply because the States were jealous of their own power and weren't eager to relinguish it. Thus the lack of providing a means of gathering support. Each state, it was intended, would send what money it felt it wanted to provide funding. Virginia was about the only State to do this consistently. Others States didn't do it at all. After eight years the lack of funding had effectively neutered the central government impotent.
Plan B... new convention to fix the Articles. By this time, those who advocated the break with Britain originally had become complacent in the guardianship over the new central government and were replaced by those who held a more nationalistic viewpoint. Hamilton, Washington and Franklin come to mind. Anyways, with the original old school advocates not in the picture a new idea comes up... Plan C.
Plan C... new constitution. Scrap the Articles, start out with something more bold which we'll call the Constitution.
Debate the issues. Anti-Federalist Papers. Federalist Papers. State assemblies debating whether to ratify or not. Some will decide to ratify as is. Others demand a Bill of Rights. Eventually the Constitution is ratified and becomes the rule book of the central government.
So yes, we can agree that the Constitution was created to give the central government more bite than the Articles provided. At question then is the extent of power that the central government was given. Article 1, Section 8 lists those powers granted to them by the People via the States.
The Taxing Clause provided the means by which this body could fund itself to take care of those concerns listed by Article 1, Section 8. The ability to tax for anything outside of those enumerated powers is in violation of Article 1, Section 8. The ability to SPEND for anything outside of those enumerated powers is in violation of Article 1, Section 8.
The Constitution is the rule book for the referee. A referee can not just make calls on what he believes the interpretation to be. Those interpretations were made by those who created the rule book. In this scenario... the Sovereign States.
On this we disagree. You're philosophy seems to advocate that the parents (the States) must be subservient to the child (the central goverment). Broken down further, are the people of Oklahoma subservient to those we elected to represent us on 23rd & Lincoln? In both cases this would be illogical. If it's illogical, then it can not be.
Each of us is sovereign. This is the foundation of a free society. Upon this foundation we build and fabricate the system of government we feel best suits our society.
You have to come back to the first question: What is the purpose of government? Answer: "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governered..."
If you and I are sovereign, it is immoral for those in power to attempt to enslave us. I own my own body. It is my property.
Each American that advocates that government takes from one citizen to help out another citizen, regardless of how well the intention, is guilty of the immoral act of theft. The money you earn is your property. It provides you with Life and the means of surviving. It provides you with the means of keeping your Liberty (buying guns and ammo for instance). And it provides a means of Pursuing Happiness (dictated by each individuals concept of happiness). Each American that seeks to see the power of government expanded beyond those powers enumerated in the Constitution are guilty seeking to empower a government capable of enslaving others, be it economic slavery or physical slavery.
It is for this reason that I often decline involving myself in debates with Americans who don't understand, who have never read or studied or who don't own a copy of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Who have never studied the words of those who Drafted and Ratified the Constitution. It would be a pointless endeavor on my part.
In the end, there is only one thing that matters to me... to be free. Unfortunately, far too many of my fellow citizens have no issue with government enslaving me with it's never ending march of taxes, rules, mandates and regulations. Sadly, most don't realize that they're not only reducing my freedoms... but reducing theirs and their childrens. As Bastiat points out, "The mission of law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even thought the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. It's mission is to protect property."
Until all citizens understand this, the loss of Liberty will continue until one day it's completely gone.
