>Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life

>let each state have its own law

The fuck?

The idea is that by insulating the elected governing body from those who elected it (through permanent seats), the governing body won't be afraid of losing the next election because they make unpopular but necessary laws. Hamilton was basing his ideas on the British model of Parliament, where seats aren't frequently reshuffled. Hamilton had mob rule on his mind, where legislators could be pressured into bad but popular decisions because their job would be on the line.

t. Quora.com

>>1775543
That makes sense for judges but not for elected legislators. Is there any way in which it mightn't have been a colossal disaster?

>>1775566

>That makes sense for judges

No, judges should also be elected. It's ridiculous to give such a tiny group of people that much power with no accountability.

>>1775579
The executive and legislators in Hamilton's proposal WOULD have been elected but would've served for life on good behavior.

>>1775536
The idea was that the feds would have far less laws than they do now. I mean, literally covering the basic shit: murder, rape, theft, etc. The states would produce laws that they see fit for their jurisdiction: seatbelts, slavery, drugs, etc. Instead, after Lincoln set the precedent, the feds went fucking nuts with laws and the states try and dispute and they can't dispute because ultimately the feds control everything. It's an error of practice, not an error of ideal.

>>1775634

The constitution didn't really give the states any powers though. You can argue that the 10th amendment does, it is too vague to really have any effect.

>>1775646
It does if you're a strict constructionist.

>>1775646
Is it not explicit anywhere in the document that they basically have all of the powers that aren't specifically given to the Congress in Article 1?

>>1775682

>Is it not explicit anywhere in the document that they basically have all of the powers that aren't specifically given to the Congress in Article 1?

That's what the 10th Amendment says.

However the Supremacy clause also says that Federal Law always wins when a federal law comes into conflict with a state law. So while the Constitution does give some power to the states, it also makes the Federal government supreme.

>>1775699
However, the idea was that the constitution would limit the feds to what was explicitly in the constitution and everything else would be off limits and up to the states.

>>1775699
This is because the Supreme Court decided to make interstate commerce mean literally anything the Feds want to regulate.

>>1775712
wtf?
you're saying the Supremacy Clause exists because SCOTUS has read the Commerce Clause very broadly?

>>1775726
No, he's saying it's invoked so often because they interpreted it so broadly.

>>1775726
I'm saying that the Supremacy Clause doesn't matter if the law is unconstitutional, which most of federal drug and gun law would be under the 10th amendment if interstate commerce wasn't applied so loosely.

>>1775708

>However, the idea was that the constitution would limit the feds to what was explicitly in the constitution and everything else would be off limits and up to the states.

If that was the intention then the commerce clause really fucked that up hardcore.

>>1775712

The biggest power the states were given in the Constitution was the ability to chose senators. Originally, the members of the senate where appointed by their state legislature rather than being elected. However, the 17th Amendment killed this. And then there is the 16th Amendment, which further removed power from the states by giving the Federal Government the ability to extract income taxes directly without immediately giving the money back to the states.

So basically, Congress just amended the constitution to give themselves more power whenever they wanted to, which is within their power to do. In retrospect, it is kind of strange that the state legislatures agreed to all this because any constitutional amendment requires their approval as well.

>>1775774
Again, error of practice, not of ideal.