Recently, Texas and the federal government have almost entered a state of armed confrontation because of the immigration issue.
A state that dares to "call out" the federal **?
This is unheard of in the eyes of outsiders, but for Americans, it is a power written into the Constitution.
Let's listen to how Professor Yi Zhongtian interprets it.
Yi Zhongtian commented on the United States in "Philadelphia Vice":
The American people fought the War of Independence, not to rule, but to remain unruled.In the sweltering summer of 1787, in the British colony of North America, 13 political entities with their own constitutions and ** sent representatives to convene the "Philadelphia Conference", which was important in American history, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
It was this conference that led to the formulation and adoption of the Federal Constitution and the birth of the "United States of America". However, this meeting also planted a big thunder: is the United States of America a country, or a multinational alliance?
It was also the trigger for the American Civil War. Now, more than 200 years later, this issue seems to be on the table again because of the "Texas" immigration issue.
What's going on? Let's take a look at how Yi Zhongtian interprets it in the book "Philadelphia Vice".
The antecedent of the armed confrontation between Texas and the U.S. federal state was that the U.S. Supreme Court supported the federal state of ** to dismantle the barbed wire fence erected by "Texas" on the border.
Many people wonder why this sentence of "the Supreme Court of the United States" carries so much weight? This has to start with the Supreme Court of the United States.
The U.S. federal government is established in strict accordance with the principle of "separation of powers" and includes the Senate and House of Representatives, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has only 9 ** officials, but such a small institution has very great power. Big enough to veto congressional bills and decide the best candidates.
In the United States, the Supreme Court is almost the same as the emperors of ancient China. What they say is illegal, whatever they do is illegal; What they say is lawful, what they do is lawful. The plaintiff and the defendant have to admit it whether they are convinced or not.
Therefore, as long as the U.S. Supreme Court makes a decision, the political attitude and the value orientation of the people may change. This is also one of the important reasons why "Texas" reacted so violently to the Supreme Court's ruling.
We can't help but ask, who gave the "U.S. Supreme Court" so much power? It all started with the Congress of Philadelphia in 1787.
Why did the Philadelphia Conference happen?
Everyone knows more or less that before the Declaration of Independence, there were no countries on the land of North America, only some colonies belonging to the "British Empire".
Between 1607 and 1732, there were 13 such British colonies, from north to south: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Before the War of Independence, these 13 colonies could be said to be incompatible, and the north and the south were not in contact with each other. However, they have a common enemy, and that is the British**.
In 1775, in order to fight for freedom, these colonies formed the "Continental Army", with George Washington as commander-in-chief, and started the "Revolutionary War", which lasted for eight years.
The war has begun, but if it is no longer relevant to Britain, it is not as simple as starting a war and fighting it. Thus, on July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, and on November 15 of the following year, the Statute of Union and Perpetual Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Articles of Confederation"), which came into full effect on March 1, 1781.
One of the core elements of the Articles of Confederation was to permanently unite the 13 colonies into the "United States of America."
The ideal is very plump, but the reality is very skinny. Although the war was won, did the 13 colonies form a sovereign state and declare independence, or did they form a union and become independent?
This state of "indifference and disagreement" can last for a while, but it can't last forever. As James Madison, the founding father of the United States, said:
We really have only two options: a full union of the thirteen states, or a full union.This is the main reason for the convening of the "Philadelphia Conference": to establish a "national supremacy" that is higher than the states, and to formulate a fundamental constitution that is higher than the states.
Why was the "Philadelphia Conference" a pragmatic meeting?
The "Philadelphia Conference" lasted three or four months, from May 25, 1787, to the signing of the draft Constitution of the United States of America on September 17, 1787.
In Professor Yi Zhongtian's evaluation, if the two sides of the argument have "grand ideals and absolute propositions" and are "some idealists and perfectionists", the meeting will "achieve nothing".
To put it bluntly, the "Philadelphia Conference" was a pragmatic meeting, and the "Constitution of the United States of America" (draft) was the product of negotiation and compromise "if you have something to say".
So, what are the two sides of the debate compromising on?
First, does the Conference have the power to make a constitution?
At the heart of the problem was the conflict of interests between the 13 colonies. The Virginia Plan for the Draft Constitution of the United States of America was proposed by Virginia. Virginia was one of the oldest and most populous colonies, so his program represented the interests of several large colonies.
As a result, the small colonies of Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, New Hampshire, and New Jersey were unhappy with the plan.
When the meeting was anxious, some people even threatened: "We have to form an alliance like this, you little state love not to come!" ”
Second, who will ratify the Constitution?
After finally striking a balance on the question of whether or not there is the right to make a constitution, who will ratify the constitution has become a focus again.
The crux of this issue is the "mandate" of legislation. Only if the donor's status is higher than that of the grantee, then the authorization is valid.
Therefore, it has been argued that among the authorizers, the people have the highest status; It has been argued that the state constitutions and the states** are mandated by the people, and the constitutions can also be approved by the state councils.
Whether it was "civil rights" or "state rights" was finally skillfully resolved by a technical process, authorized by "the people of the United States." Whether we represent the 13 colonies or the "United States of America" depends on how you understand it.
Third, how are the seats in parliament distributed?
When the cake is ready, it is time to divide the cake. Is the number of seats in each colony proportional to the population, or is it one vote for each state?
The question is equally noisy. Some people say that since democracy is emphasized, it must be distributed according to the population of the electorate; It has been said that since there is to be a republic, all states must be sovereignly equal.
This is also the public saying that the public is justified, and the mother-in-law saying that the mother-in-law is reasonable. The final result of the compromise was that the first house (the House of Representatives) was directly elected by the people; The other chamber (Senate) is elected by the state assemblies. This kind of plan of mutual checks and balances is also the political model practiced by the United States.
Fourth, do slaves count as "population"?
This issue is very sensitive. But since it involves the first house (the House of Representatives) being directly elected by the people, it is necessary to settle the accounts of this population. I can't help it, continue to fight hard.
The southern states advocated reckoning because they supported "slavery." In South Carolina, for example, he had 43 percent of the population as slaves, and if that group were not counted, it would have nearly doubled the number of seats in the First House (House of Representatives). This is certainly not a decimal.
But the northern states opposed slavery on the grounds that, if agreed, it would be tantamount to passing a bill to encourage slavery in disguise.
When the quarrel was inexorable, the killer feature of "breaking up" was used again. Finally, in order to reach an agreement and establish the Supreme People's Court, the Conference once again compromised: Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that the number of members of the House of Representatives and the amount of direct taxes shall be distributed among the states that may be included in the Union in proportion to their respective populations. The population of each state is determined by the total number of free people plus three fifths of all other populations. ("Three-fifths" of the compromise, you can taste it yourself.) ）
Therefore, the reason why "Texas" dares to argue with the federal government is precisely because the practice of "coercing each other with separation" has existed since ancient times. If you don't agree, say "break up", anyway, that's what you're most afraid of. Isn't the "United States of America" the product of compromise?
Because of the space, the argument of the "Philadelphia Conference" also includes, **Who will be in charge, how to choose, how long the term of office and many other contents, which will not be repeated here. If you are interested, you can go to the library to borrow it, or buy Yi Zhongtian's "Philadelphia Vice" to learn about it.
Here is one more point, which is also mentioned earlier, namely:
Fifth, how to check and balance power?
The main reason why the Philadelphia Conference was full of gunsmoke was that no one wanted to build a behemoth.
You know, it is precisely because they can't stand the rule of the supreme ** of the British Empire that they pick up ** to fight the British army.
The American people fought the War of Independence, not to rule, but to remain unruled.Therefore, as soon as the conference began, the "Philadelphia Conference" established a principle: this future national ** must be a separation of powers.
The meaning of this system design is that this "strong nation**" can centralize power neither in individuals (such as **) nor in institutions (such as Congress), but only in law (constitution). Specifically, after the Constitution comes into forceAll people, all states, must abide by and must not violate this constitution of common agreement.
So, who should the authority of the Constitution be relied upon? This requires reference to the "judicial referendum" mechanism of the United States Supreme Court. To put it simply, it is to adjudicate the legality of a certain piece of legislation through the trial of a case, and even if the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively reject the veto of ** by a two-thirds majority, and forcibly pass a certain evil law, the Supreme Court can still rule that it is "unconstitutional".
The authority of the US Supreme Court has also been vividly reflected in the current conflict between Texas and the United States.
To sum up, it is not difficult for us to find that the "founders" of the United States can be said to be thinking hard about the future of this country. The wheels of history are rolling forward, and when we come to the United States today, is it still the "United States of America" that these pioneers had in mind?
In this regard,
I just want to say,
The moon on the other side of the ocean,
What's the matter with us?
Just take a look.