I was watching this video of an discussion on Federalism between Napolitano, Woods, et alia where they discuss nullification and state's powers.
But what about systems of confederalism, such as those found in the Holy Roman Empire and, to a lesser extent, the Continental Congress? Unlike a federal system a confederation has no superior government and is not based on a central body to 'provide for the common defense' and regulate relations between the member states, but instead has voluntary, atonomous states which are bound by treaties of reciprocity and recognition. Under a confederal system the only way any government can gain superior power such as we see in the Federal government (even by Constitutional standards) is through naked aggression which the other members are bound to repel or be expelled from the confederation. Likewise, confederal military reciprocity is typically based around defense, the parties are not bound to assist one another in cases of aggression by other members, which seriously reduces the ability to wage large-scale aggressive warfare. Confederal governments have no central legislative assembly, nor do the member states have any right of juridic, legislative or executive powers within eachother's bounds. There are no general taxes, especially direct to the citizen, but any money apportioned to confederal actions must be apportioned and bargained for directly by an estates general assembly.
Further notes from Wikipedia:
By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation: (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation. (2) Decisions on day-to-day matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member). (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.
By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:
Such a system seems to be obviously superior from a libertarian or limited-government point of view, yet I have never heard a Constitutional reformist so much as mention the confederal idea.
Interesting point. Everyone's taught in high school that the Articles of Confederation were "too weak," and that the Constitution and Federal Government were absolutely necessary. Here's an excerpt from my old AP US History book:
The Horrid Specter of Anarchy Economic storm clouds continued to loom in the mid-1780s. The requisition system of raising money was breaking down; some of the states refused to pay anything, while complaining bitterly about the tyranny of “King Congress.” Interest on the public debt was piling up at home, and the nation’s credit was evaporating abroad. Individual states were getting out of hand. Quarrels over boundaries generated numerous minor pitched battles. Some of the states were levying duties on goods from their neighbors; New York, for example, taxed firewood from Connecticut and cabbages from New Jersey. A number of the states were again starting to grind out depreciated paper currency... Unbridled republicanism, it seemed to many of the elite, had fed an insatiable appetite for liberty that was fast becoming license. Civic virtue was no longer sufficient to rein in self-interest and greed. It had become "undeniably evident," one skeptic sorrowfully lamented, "that some malignant disorder has seized upon our body politic." If republicanism was too shaky a ground upon to construct a new nation, a stronger central government would provide the needed foundation.
The Horrid Specter of Anarchy
Economic storm clouds continued to loom in the mid-1780s. The requisition system of raising money was breaking down; some of the states refused to pay anything, while complaining bitterly about the tyranny of “King Congress.” Interest on the public debt was piling up at home, and the nation’s credit was evaporating abroad.
Individual states were getting out of hand. Quarrels over boundaries generated numerous minor pitched battles. Some of the states were levying duties on goods from their neighbors; New York, for example, taxed firewood from Connecticut and cabbages from New Jersey. A number of the states were again starting to grind out depreciated paper currency...
Unbridled republicanism, it seemed to many of the elite, had fed an insatiable appetite for liberty that was fast becoming license. Civic virtue was no longer sufficient to rein in self-interest and greed. It had become "undeniably evident," one skeptic sorrowfully lamented, "that some malignant disorder has seized upon our body politic." If republicanism was too shaky a ground upon to construct a new nation, a stronger central government would provide the needed foundation.
The articles weren't even real Confederalism, at that. They adopted many of the centralist and fiat-legislative norms of the British crown; rather than the contractual-multilateral norms extant in central European feudal confederalism. But they were closer than the Constitution.
not really... explain why it is similar to the constitution? The United States did have a central power but it was pointless because they did not have power
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
The Continental Congress had a centralized military (thanks largely to Washington) and had a central legislative body; likewise it failed to recognize treaty and contract as the norm between states. Nonetheless it was closer to confederalism than the Constitution.
Again, the central legistlative power did not have any real power. Tell me a situation where the centralized power overturned the states rights? Well, I can name one, and that is, it was against the law for states to attack foreign nations without the approval of the central power, but i cant name another situation where central powers ruled over states durin the AOC.The centralized army was very small and contributions for the military were voluntary, States armies were far larger.
Strong multilateralism, decentralization, equality of members (Rhode Island was greatly mistreated by the Continental Congress) and seperation of finances were more pronounced under the feudal system (not to deny that, as individual members, they were half-warlords over their subject populations). We might instead say that the Articles were a strong confederalism whereas the early Holy Roman Empire was a weak confederalism.