Article Image

IPFS News Link • Government

Early Americans Would Have Rejected the U.S. Government

•, by Jacob G. Hornberger

Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want "better people" managing it.

The irony is that if the type of federal governmental structure under which we live today had been proposed to the American people after the Constitutional Convention, there is no possibility that they would have approved it. They would have rejected the Constitution and, therefore, the federal government would never have come into existence.

For some 10 years, Americans had been operating under a governmental structure known as the Articles of Confederation. Under this structure, there was a federal government but its powers were so weak that it didn't even have the power to tax. Imagine that: 10 years under a federal government that lacked the power to tax people!

The Articles of Confederation reflected the philosophical mindset of our American ancestors. They didn't want a powerful federal government. They knew that a powerful federal government would end up destroying their freedom and their well-being.

But there were problems with the Articles, such as trade wars between the states. To fix these problems, the states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The purpose of the convention was simply to revise the Articles.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by chris gill
Entered on:

I would think it is highly doubtful that our founders would like how the states operate now a days either.

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

The answer is quite simple. The 12-person jury has been around for long before the formation of even the first United States of America (Articles of Confederation). The answer is, for any law to become effective for any locality, it hast to be approved by a local jury - many juries across the land. If the Federal and State governments can't get people to consider any law via jury, drop the proposed law. Also, if people, after experiencing a particular law, decide that they want to remove or modify any law by jury, they can do it any time, and as many times as they want for modification. This is basic. There would have to be some thinking going into this to make it proper and effective.