Replying to Callum

Swiss ppl understand the crucial difference between a decentralised Confederation and a centralising Federation, as did the indigenous ppls of North America, who used confederations widely (eg the Wabanaki and Iroquois confederacies, amongst many more)

It's a pity that many US Americans today, amongst whom are USA Bitcoiners who claim to be for decentralisation, don't understand the crucial difference and, like nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2qtxwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tmwwp6kyvtjw3k8zcmp8pervct409shwdtwx45rxmp4xseryerdx3ehy7f4v3axvet9xsmrjdnxw9jnsuekw9nh2ertwvmkg6n5veen7cnjdaskgcmpwd6r6arjw4js2ml2z8, celebrate one of the key men who betrayed the young Confederation, and centralised power in the new Federation
Avatar
Rik 🔥 🏔 🍃 🌊 5mo ago

As I am not from USA or Swiss, what is the difference between them?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

77
Callum 5mo ago

* In a confederation, states remain fully sovereign and independent nations. The central body exists only at their discretion. In a federation, sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the central (federal) government and the constituent states/provinces.

* A confederation's central body has only the powers *explicitly delegated* by the states. It typically cannot make laws directly applicable to individuals within the states; it deals with the state governments. A federation's central government has significant, independent powers (often enumerated in a constitution) and can make laws directly binding on individuals throughout the federation.

The U.S. Constitution established all defining traits of a federation:

- Divided Sovereignty : Power explicitly split between federal and state governments (Articles I–III, Tenth Amendment)

- Supremacy Clause. : Federal law overrides state law (Article VI, Clause 2)

- Direct Governance : Federal laws bind individuals directly (e.g., federal taxes, crimes)

- No Right of Secession : Implied by the Constitution's permanence; explicitly affirmed in *Texas v. White* (1869)

Disclaimer : The majority of the text in this reply generated by an LLM (to save me the effort)