Default avatar
Callum 11 months ago
Swiss ppl understand the crucial difference between a decentralised Confederation and a centralising Federation, as did the indigenous ppls of North America, who used confederations widely (eg the Wabanaki and Iroquois confederacies, amongst many more) It's a pity that many US Americans today, amongst whom are USA Bitcoiners who claim to be for decentralisation, don't understand the crucial difference and, like @HODL, celebrate one of the key men who betrayed the young Confederation, and centralised power in the new Federation
↑ Parent

Replies (4)

YODL's avatar
YODL 11 months ago
Do you have a good source you'd recommend for learning more about this perspective on Washington? I've recently gotten a slight itch to learn more of the secret history on him
1 replies ↓
Default avatar
Callum 11 months ago
Yes, I do have a good source (imo) but it's fairly obscure. I'll come back to you on this.
3 replies ↓
Default avatar
Callum 11 months ago
* In a confederation, states remain fully sovereign and independent nations. The central body exists only at their discretion. In a federation, sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the central (federal) government and the constituent states/provinces. * A confederation's central body has only the powers *explicitly delegated* by the states. It typically cannot make laws directly applicable to individuals within the states; it deals with the state governments. A federation's central government has significant, independent powers (often enumerated in a constitution) and can make laws directly binding on individuals throughout the federation. The U.S. Constitution established all defining traits of a federation: - Divided Sovereignty : Power explicitly split between federal and state governments (Articles I–III, Tenth Amendment) - Supremacy Clause. : Federal law overrides state law (Article VI, Clause 2) - Direct Governance : Federal laws bind individuals directly (e.g., federal taxes, crimes) - No Right of Secession : Implied by the Constitution's permanence; explicitly affirmed in *Texas v. White* (1869) Disclaimer : The majority of the text in this reply generated by an LLM (to save me the effort)
↑