We're talking about the constitution, not your optimal government of confederation, which was more akin the pre-constitutional government form the USA had, not our current one. The constitution says very little about federalism or the division of powers between the Federal & state government, which is why there have been so many SC cases about it, not to mention a civil war.

By division of powers I mean division between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches - Articles I, II, & III of the Constitution. Why was this done if not to prevent the concentration of power that Invictus & others so loathe (yet parliamentary democracies seem to be doing just fine without it).

We're both a republic & a democracy, somehow I knew gunfighter would reply with that overused slogan.

Ireland - Republic & Democracy
UK - Kingdom & Democracy
Denmark - Kingdom & Democracy
America - Republic & Democracy
Saudi Arabia - Kingdom & Absolute Monarchy
China - Republic & One-Party State

The two terms have nothing to do with one another.

@ Putin33

When you say "division of powers" I assumed you meant the division of power between the states and the federal government.

"The constitution says very little about federalism or the division of powers between the Federal & state government, which is why there have been so many SC cases about it, not to mention a civil war."

That's not true. The Constitution says enough about the division of power between the states and the federal government-

"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."

In less archaic terms, the federal government cannot do anything unless the Constitution says so, a concept that has been lost on our politicians and citizens for a disgustingly long period of time.

Also, the Civil War was about whether or not the states have the right to secede, not about the division of powers between the federal and state governments respectively. In my humble opinion, the Confederacy jumped the gun. They should have waited until Lincoln and the Republicans made a serious anti-slavery move before they seceded. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the Confederate side if they had had a good reason to secede when they did. I still believe that the states have a right to secede if the federal government becomes so profoundly tyrannical that the states have no choice but to secede. Whether or not we reach that point in the near future remains to be seen.

"That's not true. The Constitution says enough about the division of power between the states and the federal government"

One sentence in an amendment is not much compared to the three whole articles used to lay out the three branches of government. And obviously the Court had an issue reconciling various contradictory clauses within the constitution and what precisely was meant by delegated, thus the numerous SC cases.

"Also, the Civil War was about whether or not the states have the right to secede, not about the division of powers between the federal and state governments respectively."

Like your original objection, I fail to see the distinction you are making here. The conflict was a struggle regarding the relative power of the states & federal government. The Confederacy thought the states were paramount, the Unionists thought the federal government was paramount. Hence the problem of secession. If states can leave the union at will, the states are paramount.

Actually, putin, it's implicit through the whole thing, which was already recognized at ratification (before the tenth amendment). It's a document of limited powers, a point made forcefully in the Federalist and elsewhere. There's never really been doubt about that.

Not arguing it wasn't a document of limited powers. I'm arguing whether the distribution of power between the federal government & states was clearly laid out. Obviously, it wasn't, at least compared to other aspects of government. Otherwise there would have been no Nullification Crisis, no slavery controversy, etc.

I think it was reasonably clear, in terms of actual powers, and it was always held that the tenth amendment just made explicit what was implicit.

But I'll grant that the meta- issues you name should have been made clearer: nullification, secession, etc. I still think they were clear enough that there is a right answer if you look at it carefully and dispassionately all these years later, but not clear enough to prevent highly interested parties with high emotions from drawing the wrong conclusions.

I guess you could reasonably argue that actual powers like the national bank fell in that category too.

Implicit isn't clear, by definition.

Plenty of smart, careful, and dispassionate people have disagreed about this.

"Implicit isn't clear, by definition."

Well that's certainly not true. Implicit is not explicit, by definition. If I say, "I'll respond to your post when I return in 30 minutes," then I've only implicitly said I'm leaving, but I've said it clearly.

"Plenty of smart, careful, and dispassionate people have disagreed about this. "

Some of the issues, I suppose. I suppose it depends how one is using "clear," as well. Clear can mean easy to see (many things aren't), or it can mean unambiguously true after mountains of analysis (more things are).

When it comes to matters of law, implicit isn't clear, which is why plenty of people have disagreed about the federal government's role, because there are plenty of clauses (interstate commerce clause for one) where the federal government is believed to have been given expansive implied powers that annoy states rights proponents.

"The Confederacy thought the states were paramount, the Unionists thought the federal government was paramount. Hence the problem of secession. If states can leave the union at will, the states are paramount."

The states aren't paramount just because they maintain the right to secede. If/when they secede, they are no longer *states*, they become sovereign nations, so it's a little disingenuous to make the claim that you just made.

"I'm arguing whether the distribution of power between the federal government & states was clearly laid out."

It is laid out clearly. See the 10th Amendment. It's an explicit statement that the three branches of the federal government cannot do anything beyond their enumerated powers, which are also explicitly stated in the Constitution. I will concede that there is a little bit of leeway especially with respect to Congressional power (i.e. "necessary and proper clause", which I would immediately strike from the Constitution if I could singlehandedly amend it). I would argue against the necessary and proper clause by saying that anything outside of the other enumerated powers is neither necessary nor proper and therefore unconstitutional. I believe that nearly everything the federal government has done since the turn of the century has been completely and blatantly unconstitutional. It didn't become a real big problem until the 1930s. Where in the fuck in the Constitution does it say that the federal government can set up a "social security program"? A "works progress administration?" The communist tyrant Roosevelt set us back by 100 years.

"The states aren't paramount just because they maintain the right to secede. If/when they secede, they are no longer *states*, they become sovereign nations"

I fail to see your point. In a union where membership is purely voluntary, the states comprising the union have more power than the federal government, since any time a federal law is passed which they do not like, they can leave. Once again I don't see what your objection is.

"It is laid out clearly."

Obviously not, if even you concede there are clauses which are vague enough to give leeway beyond the formally outlined enumerated powers.

"The communist tyrant Roosevelt set us back by 100 years."

That's odd, considering you want us to return to 19th century government in a 21st century world. The reason why your style of federal government fell by the wayside is precisely because do-nothing governments could no longer be sustained in the face of crises like the Great Depression, which the tyrant Roosevelt stabilized in a handful of days after Hoover did nothing for the duration of his term because of some absurd commitment to a constitutional straitjacket.

"Hoover did nothing for the duration of his term because of some absurd commitment to a constitutional straitjacket."

Hoover was the most interventionist president the country had had to date. Roosevelt even ran against Hoover's interventionist policies. To say he did nothing effective may be partly true, but nothing full stop certainly isn't.

As for the phrase "constitutional straitjacket" (which I always thought was 'straightjacket' but Firefox seems cool with both), that's just a snarly way of saying limited government. The president has limited powers, sorry. He can't (or rather, oughtn't) just do what he wants if he really feels like he needs to. That's how arbitrary government happens and those of us who aren't unreconstructed Stalinists see value in that.

"Hoover was the most interventionist president the country had had to date."

This is not even a little bit true. By way of example, Hoover wanted a revision of the tariff that was limited to the agricultural schedule, which was defeated by a single vote in the Senate. Hoover didn't bother to lobby, cajole, or persuade anybody to do anything on this vote. He always let the legislature do as they wished. He called a special session of Congress, only to not bother to do anything to lead it. When unemployment hit 25%, he did nothing to push a legislative program, deferring, as all 19th century-style Presidents did, to the legislature. Deference became even more paralyzing when the opposition took over Congress in 1930, because there was no hope of anything getting passed unless Hoover took the reins of leadership.

Here's what Hoover said about his deferential attitude towards Congress

"I had felt deeply that no President should undermine the independence of the legislature and judicial branches by seeking to discredit them. The constitutional division of powers is the bastion of our liberties and was not designed as a battleground to display the prowess of Presidents. They just have to work with the material that God - and the voters - have given them."

Hoover also refused to provide direct government aid those who needed relief from the depression, preferring instead to encourage private groups to do the relieving. Hoover was content with yelling at the Red Cross to feed more people rather than have the government do it.

Yet another example, Hoover refused to call for a bank holiday, which Roosevelt did immediately after becoming President. He also implemented the Emergency Banking Bill, which in one swoop ended the banking crisis. How easy it would have been for the laissez faire Hoover to do the same thing,but instead the country got 4 years of talk.

Compared to T.R. and Wilson Hoover was not even close to being an activist President. He was a wannabe activist who was so infatuated with impractical 'constitution principles' that he let the country rot.

"The president has limited powers, sorry. He can't (or rather, oughtn't) just do what he wants if he really feels like he needs to. That's how arbitrary government happens and those of us who aren't unreconstructed Stalinists see value in that."

Parliamentary governments operate without this nonsensical constitutional interference, where parliament is sovereign and can make any law it chooses, most often directed by the Prime Minister alone, but sometimes requiring approval of the cabinet. But why let facts get in the way of your anybody who doesn't- have a American style separation of powers government is living under tyranny blather, and endless commie bashing?