Before The United States Constitution: There was The Articles of Confederation

Greeting to one and all. I am Robert Cody: Known by most as The Grunt

I will be doing a blog and post here but first I wanted to start with this subject which many do not know about, and that is “Before The United States Constitution of Independence”: There was The Articles of Confederation. this is not of my own words but pieces put together from research and I believe that in the times that we are now faced with and those who are doing their best to destroy our nation from with in should know our begining. This is a long post but worth every moment it takes to read. Thank You

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, customarily referred to as the Articles of Confederation, was the first constitution of the United States of America and legally established the union of the states. The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft the Articles in June 1776 and sent the draft to the states for ratification in November 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781, legally federating the sovereign and independent states, already cooperating through the Continental Congress, into a new federation styled the “The United States of America”. Under the Articles the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government.
On June 12, 1776, a day after appointing a committee to prepare a draft declaration of independence, the Second Continental Congress resolved to appoint a committee of thirteen to prepare a draft of a constitution for a confederate type of union. The last draft of the Articles was written in the summer of 1777 and the Second Continental Congress approved them for ratification by the States on November 15, 1777, in York, Pennsylvania after a year of debate. In practice the final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress (“the United States in Congress assembled”) until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation. The Articles set the rules for operations of the “United States” confederation. The confederation was capable of making war, negotiating diplomatic agreements, and resolving issues regarding the western territories. An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that “their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state” and “the Union shall be perpetual”.

The Articles were created by the chosen representatives of the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a perceived need to have “a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States.” Although serving a crucial role in the victory in the American Revolutionary War, a group of reformers,[1] known as “federalists”, felt that the Articles lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. Fundamentally, a federation was sought to replace the confederation. The key criticism by those who favored a more powerful central government (i.e. the federalists)[citation needed] was that the government (i.e. the Congress of the Confederation) lacked taxing authority; it had to request funds from the states. Also various federalist factions wanted[citation needed] a government that could impose uniform tariffs, give land grants, and assume responsibility for unpaid state war debts (“assumption”.) Those opposed to the Constitution, known as “anti-federalists,” considered these limits on government power to be necessary and good.[dubious – discuss][2] Another criticism of the Articles was that they did not strike the right balance between large and small states in the legislative decision making process. [dubious – discuss] Due to its one-state, one-vote plank, the larger states were expected to contribute more but had only one vote.
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Changes

Making some changes around here, bear with us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Korea 60 Years Ago – A Notable Anniverary?

Brad Schaeffer over at Big Government has a post up reminding those who need to be reminded that this June 25 will mark 60 years since North Korea invaded the South.

In truth I mark a different Korea related anniversary every year, but some of the comments engendered by his post ARE eye opening.

Mr. Schaeffer’s primary question is “Was it worth it?”

Of course I have my own answer for that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Emir Charles or Prince Charles?

The recent story out of Great Britain referring to a speech by Prince Charles gave to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies caught my eye.

He argued that: man’s destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions – but particularly those of Islam.

This rang a bell for me so I started to dig around some; only to find Daniel Pipes was way ahead of me.  It appears Prince Charles has had an interest in Islam for some time.

Still I can’t find much information anywhere else that suggests that Muslims have the answer to human caused global warming, nor any info that Islam is leading the way environmentally?

Musta missed the Islamic Save the Whales campaign too?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Depth of Field – a concept.

A definition:  depth of field (DOF) is the portion of a scene that appears acceptably sharp in the image. Although a lens can precisely focus at only one distance, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side of the focused distance, so that within the DOF, the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions.

The concept is a bit more than simply of interest.

I have friends that grab bits that are in focus without considering the depth of field.

In truth I could give examples of those that seemingly discard any frame of reference.  I’ll back-fill some later on … just think about the concept and look at YOUR friends.

ETA: Agenda driven, even on a micro scale, is another way to define depth of field.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Memorial Day

Sometimes others say what needs to be said…

A question from Lew Waters, and an answer via  Greyhawk at Mudville.

Our current national zeitgeist demands both when considering a day dedicated to those who’ve fallen. Most do forget, and there’s little real malice in that forgetfulness.

Others of us remember daily, we have no choice.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

DADT An Alternative MilBlog Perspective

CJ at A Soldier’s Perspective has provided an alternative view on the recent statement offered up by some in the milblog community.

I don’t understand the need for the first statement so I’m signing on to CJ’s response.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The TEA Party – A New Narrative?

Attempts at denigrating the tea party movement with charges of racism, and more mundane efforts using name calling have had little impact across the country.

But there is a new narrative being written that might have legs.

It boils down to using the age of many of the Tea Party members to point out their apparent hypocrisy. Many depend on Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/etc. All ran by The Government. Toss in Law Enforcement and Fire Departments and there would seem to be a case?

There’s very real danger that this new narrative will develop a sort of resonance among some members.

There’s a lengthy list of flaws easily associated with this new narrative, but I’ll leave THAT aspect to the reader. One might begin by examining just how efficient and/or effective many of these programs are?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A Fresh Look at Vietnam – Sorta?

Sometimes I stumble across an article that makes me go “I wish I’d said that”.  Sometimes it’s just fresh perspective.

Jim Guirard’s article offers both. AND it was sent along by my pal Rurik.

Entitled “The Two Vietnam Wars” the article highlights what happens when history is rewritten by agenda driven historians.

A case could be made that there were really three Vietnam wars, however Guirard carefully establishes the context for his position.

Take a moment or two and learn learn something, or just refresh your memory.

[Added] Jonn over at TAH found an article that does (in my mind) connect well with the flawed history in the Vietnam narrative accepted today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Small Town in Ohio

Ready for the last ride.

A Soldier's Farewell

Taps

Where he worked

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment