DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
NeoConfederate States fo AMerica
HTML https://ncsa.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5873--------------------------------------------------
An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Aquatur Date: August 6, 2015, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A place for civilized debate on the Constitution. I would like
to start. Sovereignty, a center for most arguments between
states. I think Caos put it perfectly in this quote: [quote
author=Caos link=topic=505.msg4771#msg4771 date=1437429730]
"By agreeing to join this confederacy, you gave Congress the
power to make certain laws governing your body. You gave up the
right to determine which laws will or will not be enacted upon
your state. You gave power to Congress to make laws, therefor
you cannot deny them that power once you join. Because you
joined, you cannot nullify. Simply put, that is an act of
treason. And I'm sure that wouldn't be viewed nicely by the Home
Guard." Ascrith Taranis spoke, his cigar seen in his hand. The
man spoke in a very Russian accent, but one thing was certain:
He did not call him Tovarishch, which he usually called his
fellow Congressmen. "Furthermore, you do not have the power, or
even leverage, to even TRY to back up your claims. It would be a
different thing entirely if I said such a thing, as that itself
would be threatening. Alas, I do not. Because, Representative,
that is illegal."
[/quote]
The Constitution affirms and reaffirms that States are protected
by the Constitution to preserve their sovereignty, but puts to
question the extent of a State's sovereignty. It has also been
almost unanimously accepted that the type of model of
sovereignty we use is the Westphalian definition. However, in
comparison and compatibility of this definition to the workings
of our own Constitution we have found it incompatible. For one,
the Constitution sets out a frame work for multi level
governance and brings up the idea of a different type of
sovereignty, "Shared Sovereignty", by which States continue to
have sovereignty over certain areas but have to cede some in
order to belong and function as a State of this Confederacy. It
is even stated in the Constitution, "At no time shall the
institutions established by this Constitution be understood to
have sovereignty over any one of the States or the several
States but shall be understood as exercising authority delegated
to them by the States". (Understood=perceive the intended
meaning of [looking at it in this light], but in essence, in
order for this to function as it is going to have sovereignty
over certain areas.) Going back to the first point made, we have
determined that the Constitution protects the sovereignty of and
applies only to the remaining areas to which the States have the
supreme authority over.
#Post#: 5878--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Caos Date: August 6, 2015, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, that quote you put there also showed something else that
is... iffy. Power.
I said that if a small state such as his, or even a moderately
large state, attempted to deny the constitution, or attempted to
actively commit treason, it would be silly. Such an act would be
put down easily by perhaps the military, or the acts of the
combined Confederacy. But this puts a spin on it entirely:
Likewise, an enormous state, or a state with a powerful
military, such as myself, has the power, the leverage, and force
needed to dissuade actions. That's entirely why it's illegal.
Could you imagine if DEN took it's closest allies and seceded
from the Confederacy? Close to 11 billion people would suddenly
become traitors, and nearly 30-50 million soldiers (Depending on
the amount pushed in... DEN hovers around 4-6 million soldiers,
as we like to spend an ENORMOUS amount of money on them) would
be up for battle. How many states could match that? How many
states COMBINED can?
#Post#: 5881--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Aquatur Date: August 6, 2015, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't really see how that relates to my point about 'Shared
Sovereignty' and multi governance system.
#Post#: 5892--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Caos Date: August 6, 2015, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It does and does not:
States are given sovereignty over themselves, to a large point.
However, the government still retains control. If a state was
given free reign, something of this magnitude could happen. As
such, I believe that some issues should be specified. For
instance, how sovereign is a state?
First of all, define Sovereignty. That's normally defined as the
following:
[quote]In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical
juridical entity that is represented by one centralized
government that has sovereignty over a geographic area.
International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent
population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity
to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] [s]It is
also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on
nor subject to any other power or state.[2][/s][/quote]
The last part, however, is purposely stricken, as it does not
apply here. Certain powers were given and lost by the state, the
last part being that. However, my personal opinion of
sovereignty is as such:
The ability to tax, regulate, maintain, and police it's
citizens, the ability to create, moderate, and maintain a
defense force, the ability to create, design, moderate,
maintain, and use of any arms, armor, and defenses, the ability
to enter into diplomatic, economic, and militaristic relations
with other entities, the ability to declare war and defend
itself, the ability to create, moderate, edit, and maintain a
standardized currency, and the ability to govern itself and
impose laws. Impeachment is the REMOVAL, editing, or disregard
of any of these items. However, anything that does not remove,
edit, or disregard this is not impeachment. For instance,
imposing a tax on a nation is not an infringements of the
state's rights, as it does nothing to remove or hinder the
state. Requiring the state's military to be EDITED, however, is
an infringement, as it is the Government removing the ability to
CREATE, DESIGN, and USE weapons, armor, or defenses. On the
other spectrum, saying you cannot use such weapons on specific
TARGETS, such as civilians, is not infringement, as it did not
disregard anything that the state was doing.
Imagine a group of people in sand. They each have, say, boundary
lines. that is the state's rights. There is a giant in the
middle of the sand. That giant is the government. If the giant
comes along and breaks the boundary lines, that edits, or
removes, the lines. That's infringement of rights. If the giant
walks around the lines, and goes straight to the person, that is
disregarding the lines. That's infringement. But the Giant can
look at all of the lines and say, these lines are square. These
lines must fits with others. These lines need to be clearly
drawn. These lines can't go over other people's lines. Here, you
need another line. As long as those lines don't disappear, don't
shrink, don't get broken or stepped over, there is no
infringement.
#Post#: 5904--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Aquatur Date: August 6, 2015, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with you in saying this, 'States are given
sovereignty over themselves, to a large point.' This is
basically what 'Shared Sovereignty' is. I think what most people
are think when it comes to sovereignty is the Westphalian model
of sovereignty.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law
that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and
domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on
the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic
affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is
equal in international law."
I seem to remember someone in Congress arguing this type of
thinking.
(In how the region works, I think it more closely resembles the
EU today)
#Post#: 5906--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Caos Date: August 6, 2015, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ever seen Babylon 5?
#Post#: 5908--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Aquatur Date: August 6, 2015, 4:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No.
#Post#: 5910--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Caos Date: August 6, 2015, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Imagine the NCSA congress whenever Sovereignty is brought up,
and then imagine that in space, and that's what one of the
topics in the tv series is.
#Post#: 5912--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Aquatur Date: August 6, 2015, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Basically rigorous debates, fighting, stuff of that nature?
#Post#: 5915--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Open Discussion of the NCSA Constitution
By: Caos Date: August 6, 2015, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Waaaaay more.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page