The Merit or Lack of Merit of a Return to the Constitution

[sailingaway]

Amend it then, get the overwhelming agreement needed to change the basic rules of our nation.

 

[Indy Vidual]

Amend it then, get the overwhelming agreement needed to change the basic rules of our nation.

Agreed, a Return to the Constitution will fix many of our current problems.

 

[capob]

You were verbose and misguided:



At best, you are mistaking what people say for what they mean. What people desire is a limited government with less control of the states and individuals, less or no taxation, end to undeclared neverending military engagements or "authorizations", and a restoration of our civil liberties. That these can be taken away by various machinations (e.g., Lincoln did it, Wilson did it, FDR did it, and G.W. Obama are doing their best to finish it off) is not the point.

If you read Ron Paul's stance on the issues, you will note it is far more complicated than you made out, "the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution.". Flawed premise is flawed?

Somebody here posted a criticism of the constitution with frequent use of the "f-word". It was quiet entertaining and did not, IIRC, besmirch Ron Paul supporters as overly simplistic.

My advice is to stick to criticizing the constitution which is a known document. Real people are more complicated and hard to pin down.

I would say, on the contrary, you were very misguided. I did not, and it was not my intention, to label Ron Paul supporters with those who think "the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution". Instead, I presented in the first paragraph the reason for my posting (namely, because Ron Paul supporters tend to be interested in the constitution), and then I posted the article.

I can see how the assumption might be made, but, your post is quite acrid. Please don't post on this thread any more.

 

[capob]

This is the idea I have such a hard time getting across to Joe & Jane Fox news viewer. They genuinely believe they have a *duty* to support Mitt Romney, and that I'm some kind of traitor or Obamaite for refusing to do so. They've let it all become about personalities instead of principles.

Whoever wins the election, the State wins and the people lose. It doesn't matter which slavemaster you pick, they'll never allow you to choose *NOBODY* as your slavemaster.

A member (hazek) posted early on this thread references his desire to create a sort of club for those of like mind and eventually discriminate against those of unlike mind. I would say, as I have been saying for years, if you have a problem with people not using logic and relying on emotion to make decisions, you must make it social unacceptable to do that. I would say, for one, it does not serve to discuss the Fox news audience here. I might go into why I couldn't convince people of an insane asylum that the sky is blue, but, there is little point to it. Instead, focus on either sharpening the principles or acting in ways that will effect them. For instance, to take from hazek, "10% discount for Ron Paul supporters". Or, simply drop your friends that insist on acting in ways you disagree with.

 

[capob]

It doesn't matter what you have written down on a piece of paper if the government didn't follow any of the Constitutions rules it can break the rules on any other constitution. It's not the Constitutions fault It's up to the people to hold their government to those rules. Thats what I'm trying to do now.

It is more than just the fact that a government could potentially break rules set up on some document. Instead, it is about creating a system where that is nearly impossible to do with any success. I would venture to say, it is obvious, and it was obvious to the people around the time of the constitution, that government can cross boundaries set in writing if not checked with things that aren't writing.

 

[capob]

I've migrated to the belief that central government is unnecessary and always ends in roughly the same way. Will we ever learn that? Who knows but probably not. The herd mentality is tough to break.

Well, more to the point is, what system will deal with the threats that central government deals with -> such as outside powers.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

OP: the canned answer you'll be given by people you try to sell this to off this website is, "the Civil War resolved this issue. There's nothing more to be said." Good luck in your quest (though it's more than likely to be fruitless).

That said, hazek is right-social contract theory and Constitutionalist theory and so forth only work on paper.

 

[capob]

I think the OP is somewhat mistaken. We're not for "going back to the Constitution" entirely, 1) because there is no way we could've understood the real intent of the writers regarding our current state of affairs and 2) Drastic changes like that will cause problems for a majority of the population. We are in a transience state, and what (at least me) we desire is an alternate interpretation of the Constitution - namely limited government.

We could argue semantics, what the Constitution really means and/or the history of the decisions our country has made - but that discussion will bear no fruit. Let us look to the future, while still learning from the mistakes of the past. We don't need to reinvent the wheel (of the state) to move forward, there are more practical options

Do read the note I added to the original post. And, to address your latter point: the question becomes, what are the details of this limited government? Before you can be taken seriously, you have to believe in something that exists. And, when you just say "limited government" and you have no actually document detailing exactly what that would entail, you essentially are believing and promoting something that doesn't exist. And, please don't take this as a discouragement; rather, an encouragement to think about the details.

 

[capob]

Amend it then, get the overwhelming agreement needed to change the basic rules of our nation.

This is easy to say, but it shirks off the duty of determining the "with what" and "how". If you don't take this duty on yourself, why do you think anyone else would?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is easy to say, but it shirks off the duty of determining the "with what" and "how". If you don't take this duty on yourself, why do you think anyone else would?

This is the duty of "representatives" according to the Constitution.

 

[maninblack]

Well, more to the point is, what system will deal with the threats that central government deals with -> such as outside powers.

I'd be cool with a return to the Articles of Confederation and see how that worked out for a while.

 

[capob]

I'd be cool with a return to the Articles of Confederation and see how that worked out for a while.

Please to read the Federalist Papers; as, the bring up many good points as to why the confederacy was insufficient as a government. Also, while you are reading that, you might also want to read a book called "The Law of Nations"

 

[soulcyon]

Do read the note I added to the original post. And, to address your latter point: the question becomes, what are the details of this limited government? Before you can be taken seriously, you have to believe in something that exists. And, when you just say "limited government" and you have no actually document detailing exactly what that would entail, you essentially are believing and promoting something that doesn't exist. And, please don't take this as a discouragement; rather, an encouragement to think about the details.

The Framers believed in the Constitution and the government that resulted from this Constitution - they believed in it, regardless of the fact that a Constitutional Republic hasn't existed before. Are you telling me the Framer's weren't taken seriously because they believed in something that didn't exist?

I agree talking in theory for too long can lead people astray from reality, but constantly referring to historical references and analyzing every situation can lead people down a similar path. I would suggest that you appropriately balance the theory and practicality of the claims laid on the table.

I am pretty much subscribed to the Minarchism theory of limited government, and like I said before, Ron Paul's stances on the issues bring our country closer to this form of government. I can still believe in the Minarchist government, even if it has never existed.

 

[capob]

The Framers believed in the Constitution and the government that resulted from this Constitution - they believed in it, regardless of the fact that a Constitutional Republic hasn't existed before. Are you telling me the Framer's weren't taken seriously because they believed in something that didn't exist?

I agree talking in theory for too long can lead people astray from reality, but constantly referring to historical references and analyzing every situation can lead people down a similar path. I would suggest that you appropriately balance the theory and practicality of the claims laid on the table.

I am pretty much subscribed to the Minarchism theory of limited government, and like I said before, Ron Paul's stances on the issues bring our country closer to this form of government. I can still believe in the Minarchist government, even if it has never existed.

You misunderstood my post. To understand my post, think of, when I say "exists", I mean, a concrete idea of it exists. And, certainly the "framers" of the constitution had a concrete idea which happened to take the form the constitution. And, more ideas were detailed in The Federalist Papers. But, when you simply say "limited government", it is hot air if no details come quickly after.

And, when I say concrete idea, I do not mean proven by history, but rather, with intellectual rigor. I, myself, am not a fan of the wordiness with which many authors express their idea; nor am I a fan of author's reliance on wordy historic examples when the concept would do just fine without such. And, certainly, I did not mean to convey that ideas are if they lack historical precedence -> a truly ridiculous idea.

 

[soulcyon]

Minarchism, go wiki it - you'll know what I'm talking about.

Ron Paul is a strong advocate of the market dealing with many of the problems the government has solved for us (roads, mail delivery, just to name a few). I'll go into details of this limited government later, got class in a few

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Please to read the Federalist Papers; as, the bring up many good points as to why the confederacy was insufficient as a government. Also, while you are reading that, you might also want to read a book called "The Law of Nations"

Read the Anti-Federalist papers and learn why the Constitution was the wrong way to go about it. (not to mention Hamilton's Curse) The Federalists' arguments simply don't hold up to any serious scrutiny.

Here is a taste of Hamilton's Curse:

As soon as the federal government announced its trillion-dollar bailout (for starters) of Wall Street plutocrats, defenders of the bailout pulled out what they apparently believed was their secret weapon: the myth of Alexander Hamilton as the alleged inventor of American capitalism. Hamilton, they said, would approve of the bailout. Case closed. How could anyone dispute "the architect of the American economy"?
Forbes.com immediately published an article entitled "Alexander Hamilton versus Ron Paul" to make the point that libertarian critiques of the bailout should be dismissed, since Hamilton was such a great statesman compared to Congressman Paul and his supporters. The Wall Street Journal Online published a piece by business historian John Steele Gordon in which he argued that our real problem is that central banking is not centralized enough; called for a financial-market dictator/regulator; supported the bailout; and, most importantly, blamed the current economic crisis on … Thomas Jefferson! Jefferson opposed America's first central bank, Hamilton's bank of the United States, and was a hard-money advocate. It is this kind of libertarian, free-market thinking, said Gordon, that is the cause of the current crisis.
What all this frantic Hamilton idolatry demonstrates is how the myth of Alexander Hamilton is the ideological cornerstone of the American system of crony capitalism financed by a huge public debt and legalized counterfeiting through central banking. It is this system that is the real cause of the current economic crisis — contrary to the false proclamations issued by Forbes.com and the Wall Street Journal.
We live in "Hamilton's republic," as the writer Michael Lind has proudly stated. Americans may like to quote Jefferson, George Will once wrote, but we live in Hamilton's country. This is true, but it is not the blessing that people like Lind, Will, and others proclaim. Just the opposite is true, as I argue in my new book, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for America Today.
[h=2]The Real Hamilton[/h] Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side was altogether different. It's good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might say.
It was Hamilton who coined the phrase "The American System" to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello), Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas. Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as Sir James Steuart.
Hamilton championed the cause of a large public debt — which he called "a public blessing" — not to establish the credit of the US government or to finance any particular public works projects but for the Machiavellian idea of tying the interests of the more affluent to the state: being government bondholders, they would, he believed, then support all of his grandiose plans for heavy taxation and a government much larger than what was called for in the Constitution. He was right. They, along with Wall Street investment bankers who have marketed the government's bonds, have always provided effective political support for bigger government and higher taxes. That is why Wall Street investment bankers were first in line for a bailout, administered by one of their fellow investment bankers, Treasury Secretary Paulson.
Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton's everlasting regret.
In a publication entitled "A History of Central Banking in America" the Fed proudly labels Hamilton as its founding father, boasting that he even spoke just like a contemporary Fed chairman. The First Bank of the United States, which was opposed by Jefferson and Madison, created 72 percent inflation in its first five years of operation, as Murray Rothbard wrote in A History of Money and Banking in the United States. It was not rechartered in 1811, but was resurrected by Congress in 1817, after which it created America's first boom-and-bust cycle, which led to the Panic of 1819, the title of another of Rothbard's great works on American economic history.
After years of generating political corruption and economic instability, Hamilton's bank finally came to an end by the early 1840s, thanks to President Andrew Jackson. This led to the twenty-year "free banking" era. Hamiltonian central banking was resurrected once again in the 1860s with the National Currency Acts. This is an important reason why some historians have labeled the postwar decades as a period of "Hamiltonian hegemony."
When Anna Schwartz, Michael Bordo, and Peter Rappaport evaluated this precursor to the Fed in an academic publication, they concluded that it was characterized by "monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances" (see their paper in Claudia Goldin, ed., Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century Economic Growth). Naturally, the government's response to all of this economic panic and instability caused by centralized banking was to create an even more centralized banking system with the Federal Reserve Act.
Hamilton is perhaps best known among economists for his Report on Manufactures. In his 1905 biography of Hamilton, William Graham Sumner wrote that Hamilton's report advocated "the old system of mercantilism of the English school, turned around and adjusted to the situation of the United States." Thomas Jefferson also wrote that Hamilton's "schemes" for protectionism, corporate welfare, and central banking were "the means by which the corrupt British system of government could be introduced into the United States." They were right.
Hamilton's reputation as having had great expertise in economics and finance has been greatly exaggerated, wrote Sumner, who also wrote that Hamilton's economic thinking was marred by "confusion and contradiction" and that Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism." Unfortunately for us, all of Hamilton's bad ideas "proved a welcome arsenal to the politicians" who succeeded him, noted Sumner.
At the constitutional convention Hamilton proposed a permanent president who would appoint all the governors of the states and would have veto power over all state legislation. His opponents correctly interpreted this as advocating a monarchy and, worse yet, a monarchy based on mercantilism. The reason for consolidating all political power first in the central government, and then in the hands of one man, the permanent president, was so that an American mercantilist empire could be centrally planned and controlled without any dissenters, such as tax protestors or free traders who resided in the various states. Hamilton (and his political heirs) understood that forced national uniformity is the only way in which such a central-planning scheme could work. The socialists of the 20th century understood this as well.
Hamiltonian mercantilism is essentially the economic and political system that Americans have lived under for several generations now: a king-like president who rules through "executive orders" and disregards any and all constitutional constraints on his powers; state governments that are mere puppets of the central government; corporate welfare run amok, especially in light of the most recent outrage, the Wall Street Plutocrat Bailout Bill; a $10 trillion national debt ($70 trillion if one counts the government's unfunded liabilities); a perpetual boom-and-bust cycle caused by the Wizard of Oz–like central planners at the Fed; constant military aggression around the world that only seems to benefit defense contractors and other beneficiaries of the warfare state; and more than half of the population bribed with subsidies of every kind imaginable to support the never-ending growth of the state. This is Hamilton's curse on America — a curse that must be exorcized if there is to be any hope of resurrecting American freedom and prosperity.

 

[capob]

Minarchism, go wiki it - you'll know what I'm talking about.

Ron Paul is a strong advocate of the market dealing with many of the problems the government has solved for us (roads, mail delivery, just to name a few). I'll go into details of this limited government later, got class in a few

Wikipedia - "it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states."

Sorry to say, it's not too hard to project failure with this type of state. I will just go into a couple ways of failure. One, owing to the small size of the government and lack of anti-trust laws, market entities will tend to gain power and eventually turn into monopolies or cartels and usurp the power of the government one way or another. Two, in the power to protect against aggression, there is an expansiveness which does not appear to have a check. To be certain, the absolute power to do one thing tends to lead to the power to do many other things. From my article:

"Then, there is the idea that where the ends are given, the means are justified. That is, since the federal government is authorized "To establish Post Offices and post Roads", it is assumed that the means for setting up these Post Offices are also authorized. Combining this idea with some indeterminate part of the Constitution, like "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", and you will have the federal government exercising quite extravagant means for quite mundane ends. There is no explicit redress to these encroachments."

 

[capob]

Read the Anti-Federalist papers and learn why the Constitution was the wrong way to go about it. (not to mention Hamilton's Curse) The Federalists' arguments simply don't hold up to any serious scrutiny.

Here is a taste of Hamilton's Curse:

As soon as the federal government announced its trillion-dollar bailout (for starters) of Wall Street plutocrats, defenders of the bailout pulled out what they apparently believed was their secret weapon: the myth of Alexander Hamilton as the alleged inventor of American capitalism. Hamilton, they said, would approve of the bailout. Case closed. How could anyone dispute "the architect of the American economy"?
Forbes.com immediately published an article entitled "Alexander Hamilton versus Ron Paul" to make the point that libertarian critiques of the bailout should be dismissed, since Hamilton was such a great statesman compared to Congressman Paul and his supporters. The Wall Street Journal Online published a piece by business historian John Steele Gordon in which he argued that our real problem is that central banking is not centralized enough; called for a financial-market dictator/regulator; supported the bailout; and, most importantly, blamed the current economic crisis on … Thomas Jefferson! Jefferson opposed America's first central bank, Hamilton's bank of the United States, and was a hard-money advocate. It is this kind of libertarian, free-market thinking, said Gordon, that is the cause of the current crisis.
What all this frantic Hamilton idolatry demonstrates is how the myth of Alexander Hamilton is the ideological cornerstone of the American system of crony capitalism financed by a huge public debt and legalized counterfeiting through central banking. It is this system that is the real cause of the current economic crisis — contrary to the false proclamations issued by Forbes.com and the Wall Street Journal.
We live in "Hamilton's republic," as the writer Michael Lind has proudly stated. Americans may like to quote Jefferson, George Will once wrote, but we live in Hamilton's country. This is true, but it is not the blessing that people like Lind, Will, and others proclaim. Just the opposite is true, as I argue in my new book, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for America Today.
[h=2]The Real Hamilton[/h] Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side was altogether different. It's good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might say.
It was Hamilton who coined the phrase "The American System" to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello), Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas. Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as Sir James Steuart.
Hamilton championed the cause of a large public debt — which he called "a public blessing" — not to establish the credit of the US government or to finance any particular public works projects but for the Machiavellian idea of tying the interests of the more affluent to the state: being government bondholders, they would, he believed, then support all of his grandiose plans for heavy taxation and a government much larger than what was called for in the Constitution. He was right. They, along with Wall Street investment bankers who have marketed the government's bonds, have always provided effective political support for bigger government and higher taxes. That is why Wall Street investment bankers were first in line for a bailout, administered by one of their fellow investment bankers, Treasury Secretary Paulson.
Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton's everlasting regret.
In a publication entitled "A History of Central Banking in America" the Fed proudly labels Hamilton as its founding father, boasting that he even spoke just like a contemporary Fed chairman. The First Bank of the United States, which was opposed by Jefferson and Madison, created 72 percent inflation in its first five years of operation, as Murray Rothbard wrote in A History of Money and Banking in the United States. It was not rechartered in 1811, but was resurrected by Congress in 1817, after which it created America's first boom-and-bust cycle, which led to the Panic of 1819, the title of another of Rothbard's great works on American economic history.
After years of generating political corruption and economic instability, Hamilton's bank finally came to an end by the early 1840s, thanks to President Andrew Jackson. This led to the twenty-year "free banking" era. Hamiltonian central banking was resurrected once again in the 1860s with the National Currency Acts. This is an important reason why some historians have labeled the postwar decades as a period of "Hamiltonian hegemony."
When Anna Schwartz, Michael Bordo, and Peter Rappaport evaluated this precursor to the Fed in an academic publication, they concluded that it was characterized by "monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances" (see their paper in Claudia Goldin, ed., Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century Economic Growth). Naturally, the government's response to all of this economic panic and instability caused by centralized banking was to create an even more centralized banking system with the Federal Reserve Act.
Hamilton is perhaps best known among economists for his Report on Manufactures. In his 1905 biography of Hamilton, William Graham Sumner wrote that Hamilton's report advocated "the old system of mercantilism of the English school, turned around and adjusted to the situation of the United States." Thomas Jefferson also wrote that Hamilton's "schemes" for protectionism, corporate welfare, and central banking were "the means by which the corrupt British system of government could be introduced into the United States." They were right.
Hamilton's reputation as having had great expertise in economics and finance has been greatly exaggerated, wrote Sumner, who also wrote that Hamilton's economic thinking was marred by "confusion and contradiction" and that Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism." Unfortunately for us, all of Hamilton's bad ideas "proved a welcome arsenal to the politicians" who succeeded him, noted Sumner.
At the constitutional convention Hamilton proposed a permanent president who would appoint all the governors of the states and would have veto power over all state legislation. His opponents correctly interpreted this as advocating a monarchy and, worse yet, a monarchy based on mercantilism. The reason for consolidating all political power first in the central government, and then in the hands of one man, the permanent president, was so that an American mercantilist empire could be centrally planned and controlled without any dissenters, such as tax protestors or free traders who resided in the various states. Hamilton (and his political heirs) understood that forced national uniformity is the only way in which such a central-planning scheme could work. The socialists of the 20th century understood this as well.
Hamiltonian mercantilism is essentially the economic and political system that Americans have lived under for several generations now: a king-like president who rules through "executive orders" and disregards any and all constitutional constraints on his powers; state governments that are mere puppets of the central government; corporate welfare run amok, especially in light of the most recent outrage, the Wall Street Plutocrat Bailout Bill; a $10 trillion national debt ($70 trillion if one counts the government's unfunded liabilities); a perpetual boom-and-bust cycle caused by the Wizard of Oz–like central planners at the Fed; constant military aggression around the world that only seems to benefit defense contractors and other beneficiaries of the warfare state; and more than half of the population bribed with subsidies of every kind imaginable to support the never-ending growth of the state. This is Hamilton's curse on America — a curse that must be exorcized if there is to be any hope of resurrecting American freedom and prosperity.

This is just various ad hominem arguments against Hamilton and his intent. For example:
"Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection."
Doesn't negate the idea that large standing armies are necessary to protect against aggression; it just negates that that was the reason Hamilton wanted them. I do appreciate bringing content to the debate, but please keep the content relevant.

 

[Indy Vidual]

...please keep the content relevant.

Ron Paul (whose name is on this forum) wants a Return to the Constitution.
How could that not be much better than what we have now?

 

[maninblack]

Please to read the Federalist Papers; as, the bring up many good points as to why the confederacy was insufficient as a government. Also, while you are reading that, you might also want to read a book called "The Law of Nations"

Please look at at how that turned out.