Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (126367)	3/16/2004 5:31:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

it should have been made clear that the federal government derived its authority from the sovereign people, not the several states Originally it did derive its authority from the several states as much as it derived its authority from the people. It would have been interesting if one or two of the states didn't ratify the constitution. Under the constitution itself it didn't have to be unanimous but the reluctant state or states could consider itself not to be bound by the constitution. It would have only agreed to the articles of confederation which said "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." Tim

To: Neocon who wrote (126367)	3/16/2004 9:42:23 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Amazing. I agree with everything in your long post. <I think that the United States has made considerable progress since its founding, and that it has largely been a force for good in the world.> I, too, think we began with good principles that were only partly put into practice, and have since made huge strides in deepening and broadening the principle of "consent of the governed." I, too, think the U.S. has largely been a force for good in the world. With the world's large and/or wealthy nations, we mostly act with respect, and establish mutually beneficial relations. And the example of the U.S., has steadily led more and more nations to adopt market economies and liberal democracy. It is mainly in the world's poor and small nations, and mainly since 1898, that the U.S. has acted at variance to our founding principles. <I do not think that we do good in the world by wringing our hands over the sins of our ancestors> Hand-wringing = guilt that leads to no change in bad habits. I agree, hand-wringing is useless. The point of being honest about the past, is to improve the future. Guilt is pointless. For instance, the Japanese, on a regular basis, piss off the Chinese and Koreans, because they are unable to admit they did anything wrong, in their conduct in those two nations, pre-1945. Until the Japanese confess their crimes, the neighbors will worry about them being repeated.