Why do some reject the French Revolution?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
7,045
Spain
What you said may be true, yet it's a very complex question since it involves many centuries; nobody denies that there's a huge difference, just to make an example, between medieval Europe (St. Thomas, Scholasticism) and the modern age starting with the industrial capitalist revolution and the French and the American ones. There's a debate and there will also be between scholars who argue that, for example, the Declaration of Indipendence is original, and those who focus more on the strong European roots of the American order (see Russell Kirk's work). But common sense puts a strong line of separation between the Middle-ages and modern European culture (from Descartes to Post-modernism). Basically I think that our world started in 1400-1700s, then who cares if the American revolution did invent something or not, that's more of a jingoistic trivial debate I think.
I agree.. but not me.. but mr Royal who said was in "America" were invented the human rights (or to say Protestants invented the human rights!!!!).... not me. I can be a kind of Jiminy Cricket had to specify what is said ... not to be mistaken... Our World as we know begun late 19th Century (about 1870-1890) but the roots... and economic and cultural substrate comes from late Middle Age (15th Century) and the modern age (late 15th Century to early 17th Century)... In 1492... World was not know... in 1620... Europeans has been in every continent....
 
Nov 2019
435
United States
That's all and well but the political practice had drastically departed from the constitutional intent

- the supreme court , from a narrow guardian of the text , has become a political power at least since john Marshall tenure
he set the supremacy theory of the court , not unlike the Catholic popes proclaimed their supremacy over kings and emperors

- the power of the states has been curtained in many way , militarily , financially , and in their relation to the Federal administration
nowadays they are little more than administrative subdivisions with some marginal legislative autonomy

- the function of the President , from a figurehead has been transmogrified into an elective parliamentary monarchy

the house of representatives has become a joke , the first chamber becoming to the US political life as relevant as the house of lords is to the British
to claim that the Constitution is still operational wit a few modifications is like claiming that because they are firearms the Army is using modified flintlock muskets
Hello Sparky, hope all is well with you, and that the fires are not threatening you. I know something about wildfires, it's a frightening experience.

I would not disagree that in many ways the system seems to have become less than what the original intent was, the issue has been largely that the House and the Senate have allowed bureaucracy to grow in power and action, and has not reigned in those factors. In theory that has allowed the Executive office to garner control that constitutionally it should not possess, in reality what has occurred is that the bureaucrats have become in essence a 5th branch of government. What has occurred is that legislation is/was not thorough enough to spell out the specific acts that those bureaucrats are allowed to accomplish, and in that void, Congress has allowed those bureaucrats to define the meaning of, and activities allowed by those bureaucratic offices.

One example of this was what was referred to as the Sue and Settle approach of the EPA; through which the EPA used 3rd party independent lawyers to sue, in order to force changes in the Federal Government's regulation of situations. In essence this became de facto law making through EPA regulations, even though no Congressional actions or laws were written to change those regulations.

This kind of activity has been an ongoing issue since at least the late 60's to the present. Recently there has been oversight and an attempt to prevent this form of extra-legal de facto law making.

Ultimately such bureacratic actions will be forestalled by a more conservative Supreme Court that takes a more Originalist view towards laws and regulations, and forces Congress to own the legislative process rather than using subterfuge to deny responsibility to the public for their acts.

Regarding the States Rights issues; this is mostly again the result of interpretations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Again a more conservative Supreme Court (currently a 5--4 majority for conservatives) taking a more diligent approach, will need to review how the interpretations of the Commerce Clause have expanded the role of the Federal Government since the 1930's. There is a fairly strong perspective within the Conservative and Libertarian circles of American politics to see this issue resolved. The question is can Conservatives maintain overall control of the Executive and Legislative bodies? The American public by and large is somewhat erratic in how they vote, often voting 8 years of one party, and then 8 years of another. This has import to how successful bending Federal power back to a more Originalist view.

You mentioned states rights regarding military, there is no real role for states regarding this issue with the exception of individual miltitary state organized National Guard Units.

The respective state National Guards are authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "militias," which were state entities, from "Troops," which were unlawful for states to maintain without Congressional approval. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3). Under current law, the respective state National Guards and the State Defense Forces are authorized by Congress to the states and are referred to as "troops." 32 U.S.C. § 109.

Although originally state entities, the Constitutional "Militia of the Several States" were not entirely independent because they could be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress is also empowered to come up with the guidelines "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States." (Article II, Section 2). ( Wiki)

Financially, I guess it depends on how you are analyzing this; do states have legal control of their finances, Yes. Is there a strong difference in the way states operate financially, Yes. Is there sometimes wild variations in their taxing processes, Yes. My home state is the only state also that uses a Unicameral Legislature (FYI I am not a fan of this process).

However can the Federal Government dictate how some funds must be appropriated, yes they do, and this has many reasons and applications. Medicaid is one of the most obvious as is Food Stamps and other Federally funded programs. Also there is the issue of how the Federal Government uses Federal Education funds to force states to adhere to plans initiated by the U.S. Department of Education.

Still I would venture to say that in the United States there is far more regional independence of States than there is of similar provincial entities in other nations. Simply observing the differences between California and Texas in how their states operate is quite edifying.

As for the powers of the President, again this is as much a response to the inactivity of the Federal Legislative bodies to act responsibly in control of the activities of the President as it is the fault of the construction of the government. The reality is that Congressmen and Senators are more willing to let a President act, and then blame them for their actions, than it is the privileges they own. The immigration issue is an exacting example of this problem. If Congress wanted to solve this issue they could, they would have to however create bi-partisan legislation that would do so, and very few members of Congress are willing to do the hard work to accomplish that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sparky

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,783
Sydney
many of those changes are probably the result of an ever increasing growth of the State function

in Australia the confederation has also seen the federal government assume powers it didn't had
often with the direct support of our very interventionist supreme court

the growth in powers came as a result of WW2 , and later by the modification of the tax system
the power of the purse is a strong one
the Feds levy the income tax , the goods and services tax and the export levies on minerals
then give back some to the individual states , favoring some and short changing others
they have little say in the process , except whining loudly that they are robbed
as of today , the federation is little more than a device to have plenty of state politicians with no real usefulness