The worst thing I see about the Articles of Confederation is it did
not have a way to enforce state membership fees in the federation but
that could have been taken care of with an amendment. Kicking a state
out of the federation for not payung memebership dues might have been
the best enforcement
Yes there was no federal court but the Sennate could have
acted as a court between a state and another state, a foreign
government and a state, the federation and a state, plus maybe a
foreigner in another country against a state or a state citizen
against the state or a foreigner in another country against another
foreigner in another country or against his government. In other
words the Senate could have by unamious decesion made judical
decesions with of course the representives of a state in question
reecusing themself since they would be the plantiff or
defedent.
Enforcement of a judical decesion could go as far as kicking
a state out of the federation if it did not compliy with the decesion
and refusing to have diplomatic relations, have no treaties with the
removed state, no extridication treaty.--- In
[email protected], "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Macko
> If you were alive in 1788 would you have wanted the
> United States to continue to exist as a nation?
>
> MJ
> A decentralized confederation versus a centralized state?
> ... the FORMER ... of course.
>
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as
> a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be
> bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the
> new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a
> NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39
>
