# How the united states government was organized



## jvarnell (Oct 28, 2014)

Has anyone noticed that the United States of America parales the old testement and the israelites path through time.  I won't start right at the beginning but at the point at wich Judges were named as a loose confedration.  At this point each of the 12 tribes had there own leadership and worked together through Judges.  In my mind this is the same as the original 13 colonies and a week fedral government.  After a while in time the Israelites decided they wanted a king and God to say  if that is what you really think you want you will have a King.  When Israel started having a King they got all the trouble that went along with having a King.  Like a strong centreal Goverment after Lincoln's time.  They also had a divsion like the North and South but it is a division of Isleal and Juda.  I think there are more simularitys and think history repeats and we should look at the results of there time.


----------



## gregorygertenbach (Oct 28, 2014)

Hi Brothers Greg from South Africa

Sent from my Q10 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 28, 2014)

The US government under the Articles of Confederation was based on previous confederation system in history like the German Hansiatic League.  The US government under the Constitution is explicitly based on the form of the Roman Republic before the transition to Roman Empire.  Bicameral legislature, a separate judicial system, an executive system - The Roman Republic's executive branch and two Counsels rather than a single President.  There is a parallel with the Israelities as you point out but the parallel with the Romans is more accurate because it was deliberately chosen.


----------



## jvarnell (Oct 28, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> The US government under the Articles of Confederation was based on previous confederation system in history like the German Hansiatic League.  The US government under the Constitution is explicitly based on the form of the Roman Republic before the transition to Roman Empire.  Bicameral legislature, a separate judicial system, an executive system - The Roman Republic's executive branch and two Counsels rather than a single President.  There is a parallel with the Israelities as you point out but the parallel with the Romans is more accurate because it was deliberately chosen.


 So you will need to read the old testement so you will know where that came from but you need to look at the change from a week confedration to a strong fedral government to see what I have said.  If you read it you will also see that God told the Isrealites they did not really want a king because they will fall because of it.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Oct 29, 2014)

Sooooo, then, the USA parallels Israel up to 1787, then it stops. After that, it's the New Rome.

Shades of late-night 1980s TV cable shows...


----------



## BryanMaloney (Oct 29, 2014)

As for "the results of there [sic] time", the "results" were the entrance of He who brought salvation to all the nations, so, I'd say it was a good thing.


----------



## admarcus1 (Oct 29, 2014)

jvarnell said:


> So you will need to read the old testement so you will know where that came from but you need to look at the change from a week confedration to a strong fedral government to see what I have said.  If you read it you will also see that God told the Isrealites they did not really want a king because they will fall because of it.


I don't think this was because a weak confederation was God's preferred form of government. It's that they did not need a king when they already had one. Malchei HaMelachim, the King of kings, should have been enough. 
In the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, I don't remember anyone trying to support their preferred view of the republic with scripture.


----------



## NY.Light (Oct 30, 2014)

it's hardly as though the Jews elected a King, and local officials to boot.  And the US federal government really didn't step into it's larger role until FDR. 

No offense to anyone here, but this post seems more motivated by a particular view of how government should be (in the author's view) rather than actual historic parallels.


----------



## admarcus1 (Oct 30, 2014)

NY.Light said:


> No offense to anyone here, but this post seems more motivated by a particular view of how government should be (in the author's view) rather than actual historic parallels.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## jvarnell (Oct 30, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> I don't think this was because a weak confederation was God's preferred form of government. It's that they did not need a king when they already had one. Malchei HaMelachim, the King of kings, should have been enough.
> In the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, I don't remember anyone trying to support their preferred view of the republic with scripture.


The judges were chosen when needed and not passed to famly members like kings.  I see the parallels like some others like I stated.  The us was better off when states rights were the way thing worked.


----------



## NY.Light (Oct 30, 2014)

jvarnell said:


> The judges were chosen when needed and not passed to famly members like kings.  I see the parallels like some others like I stated.  The us was better off when states rights were the way thing worked.



I have to disagree wholeheartedly.  First, your last sentence confuses me. It seems to suggest that the states do not have rights any longer.  While the federal government may have taken a greater role in the recent past, to suggest that the states do not have rights before the federal government


----------



## NY.Light (Oct 30, 2014)

-Continued-

Goes against all evidence.  Many contemporary domestic issues are left to the states.  Gay marriage is one example.

As has been previously stated, the U.S. Is explicitly modeled off the British parliamentary system, substituting a constitutional monarch with an elected executive, who is both the executor if the law and subject to it.  This system finds it's origin in the british common law system, a model that emulated aspects of the early Roman Republic.  

Perhaps you are confusing historical correlations with historical relations.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 31, 2014)

NY.Light said:


> As has been previously stated, the U.S. Is explicitly modeled off the British parliamentary system, substituting a constitutional monarch with an elected executive, who is both the executor if the law and subject to it.  This system finds it's origin in the british common law system, a model that emulated aspects of the early Roman Republic.



The structure of the US government is modeled directly on the Roman Republic not indirectly through the Parliamentary system.  It's why we have neither king nor prime minster but we do have proconsul with veto power.

The US common law system is taken directly from English common law which is in turn taken from Danelaw (Norse) and Saxon common law.

I suggest this combination of sources gave the new country the benefits of hybrid vigor which lasted at least a century.


----------



## admarcus1 (Oct 31, 2014)

And when was this wonderful time?


----------



## NY.Light (Oct 31, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> The structure of the US government is modeled directly on the Roman Republic not indirectly through the Parliamentary system.  It's why we have neither king nor prime minster but we do have proconsul with veto power.
> 
> The US common law system is taken directly from English common law which is in turn taken from Danelaw (Norse) and Saxon common law.
> 
> I suggest this combination of sources gave the new country the benefits of hybrid vigor which lasted at least a century.



The British Empire was much more accessible to the Founding Fathers.  Perhaps they may have claimed a relational system to Rome, but it was within the context of what they knew as the British system. The House of Commons and House of Lords  closely resemble the House of Reps. and Senate.  The glaring difference is the lack of Prime Minister/King.  But keep in mind, England was a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign being both ruler and and subject to the law.  The powers of executive are vested within the presidency in the United States.  All this is to say the America system, at least in practice, if not ideology, bears a closer resemblance to the English parliamentary system than the Roman Republic.  This isn't to claim that differences in each iteration do not exist, only that the early Americans were much more familiar with the British governmental system, and drew more on that experience and theory than the histories recorded by Cicero, et al.

All this is to further say that if any parallels exist between American history and and Jewish history, they are coincidental and are not formally influential on each other.

As a general rule, histories of individual locales and governments may share some parallels, but this is only because they deal in the same administrative realm.  

I will end this comment by stating simply that it is my belief that a federal government should take precedence in matters of national importance.  To put it another way, if I were alive in the early republic, I would have been in adamant agreement with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.  They constitute, in my opinion, the two greatest political scientists of the early American period (1776-1800).


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 3, 2014)

NY.Light said:


> The British Empire was much more accessible to the Founding Fathers.  Perhaps they may have claimed a relational system to Rome, but it was within the context of what they knew as the British system. The House of Commons and House of Lords  closely resemble the House of Reps. and Senate.  The glaring difference is the lack of Prime Minister/King.  But keep in mind, England was a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign being both ruler and and subject to the law.  The powers of executive are vested within the presidency in the United States.  All this is to say the America system, at least in practice, if not ideology, bears a closer resemblance to the English parliamentary system than the Roman Republic.  This isn't to claim that differences in each iteration do not exist, only that the early Americans were much more familiar with the British governmental system, and drew more on that experience and theory than the histories recorded by Cicero, et al.



I suggest rereading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.  The authors cite examples from history that I had to look up because they were not covered even at college level in my era.  They considered examples from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, medieval Florence, England from the Norman invasion to their present to all be accessible.



> All this is to further say that if any parallels exist between American history and and Jewish history, they are coincidental and are not formally influential on each other.



Examples of historical parallelism?


----------



## NY.Light (Nov 3, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> I suggest rereading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.  The authors cite examples from history that I had to look up because they were not covered even at college level in my era.  They considered examples from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, medieval Florence, England from the Norman invasion to their present to all be accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> Examples of historical parallelism?



I have read the federalist papers.  I do not deny that reference may have been made, however I do hold that on a practical level, outside of rhetoric, these men were much more in touch with their experience of English constitutionalism.

And the bit about parallelism was my attempt to steer this back to the intent of the OP, who was conjecture my about these parallels.  I for one find them non-existent, at least in any  way practical.


----------

