Which constitution was better?

[A18]

Discuss.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#Article1

[Emsworth]

The Confederate Constitution seems to be better overall. The taxing and spending clause of the Confederate Constitution is phrased much better than its counterpart in the United States Constitution. Protectionist tariffs were prohibited, as were subsidies. The Confederate government was to have no role in providing "internal improvements." The President of the Confederacy held not only a normal veto, but also a line-item veto. His power to remove executive officials was explicitly stated (whereas it is merely implicit in the U.S. Constitution). State sovereign immunity was expressly affirmed.

Of course, the Confederate Constitution did have some faults. The Preamble affirmed that the Constitution was adopted while "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God." A constitutional convention could be called by "any three States"; if several new states had been admitted to the Confederacy, then it would have been exceptionally easy to call new conventions. The protections afforded to slavery, furthermore, were more extensive than those affored by the U.S. Constitution.

[??????????]

Option 2

[minionofmidas]

Voted option 1, but really that was just a gut reaction. Quite a stupid one too...I mean, that's the Covenant With Hell we're talking about...
What was the amendment process like in the Confeddy thingy?

[© tweed]

The bill of rights is somewhat copied from the USA.

But it also explicitly contains the right to 'own' negroes, which is wrong.  I support voluntary segregation, not government-sponsored segregation or slavery.  So I'll go with the US constitution.

[Emsworth]

But it also explicitly contains the right to 'own' negroes, which is wrong.  I support voluntary segregation, not government-sponsored segregation or slavery.  So I'll go with the US constitution.

Well, prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the U.S. Constitution also protectected slavery--just not as explicitly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Confederate Constitution has some other flaws, besides acknowledging slavery explicitly to the same extent as the Federal Constitution did implicitly.  For instance, with tarriffs, how does one determine when they have been "laid to promote or foster any branch of industry" and when they have been laid simply to raise revenue or to punish another nation?  And since politically, I would have been a Whig before that party disintegrated over the slavery issue, the no internal improvements restrictions is a big negative as far as I am concerned.

[Emsworth]

And since politically, I would have been a Whig before that party disintegrated over the slavery issue, the no internal improvements restrictions is a big negative as far as I am concerned.

To be fair, of course, the U.S. Constitution did not authorize internal improvements either.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And since politically, I would have been a Whig before that party disintegrated over the slavery issue, the no internal improvements restrictions is a big negative as far as I am concerned.

To be fair, of course, the U.S. Constitution did not authorize internal improvements either.

I'd have to disagree there.  The power to establish Post Roads, combined with the necessary and proper clause, clearly authorizes the funding of their construction.  It doesn't require the commerce clause to justify that the Federal government can engage in internal improvements.

[Emsworth]

I'd have to disagree there.  The power to establish Post Roads, combined with the necessary and proper clause, clearly authorizes the funding of their construction.  It doesn't require the commerce clause to justify that the Federal government can engage in internal improvements.

The post road clause only allows the federal government to build post roads, not any and all roads whatsoever. (Indeed, whether it authorizes the federal government to build even post roads is questionable--it could be argued that the clause merely allows the federal government to designate the roads on which mail may be carried.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even a limitation of only those roads that go between post offices would still cover far more roads than the Feds ever considered building in the 19th century and would be enough to justify the current system of Federal aid highways.  Also, unless you are a literalist who thinks that the air force is unconstitutional, it's also more than enough to justify Federal funds for airports and air traffic control.