Posted on 02/18/2010 6:38:39 AM PST by Politically Correct
marked for later
Secession is the sort of shock therapy that might save this country. I support it.
Which is another way of saying the Constitution was a mistake. I agree with that. Not sure about completely separate ways. We benefit greatly from being a federal union. We should return to that model. Ditch the supreme national government. Ditch "mixed sovereignty". Return to a confederation of states.
By the way, the Confederate Constitution was a joke. It wasn't even a confederacy! It was a consolidated national government just as bad as ours!
It’s a losing battle. There’s a reason it’s called the Lost Cause. What we need is a Constitutional Convention. That’s the proper way to begin again.
Respectfully disagree. I believe that the first pronouncement from any Constitutional Convention will be: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
That is the very LAST thing this nation needs.
That said, in my view, a convention would also be the avenue to secession. Set the ratification requirements accordingly, and if you don't like what you get, don't ratify. Then you're out of the union.
No, it’s actually the very thing we need.
Amen,
The current constitution is just fine.
We just need the federal gov to abide by it.
By the way, isn't that what we have now? Seems like it to me.
LOL. That's funny every time I hear it.
I have little doubt Texas will leave the union someday,
unfortunately it won’t leave as a free country but instead due to demographics it will leave as part as Aztlan
The way things are going these days, secession and/or another civil war may be the only way to fix what’s been going on. Our last chance is in November, and if we do not vote people into Congress who respect the Constitution, then we might just as well find a way to bring the whole thing down.
The Constitution is only a problem because of the constant diddling with it. One good example is the 17th Amendment. When we supposedly gave the people direct election of Senators, we effectively surrendered them to the control of the National political parties. Originally, Senators were selected by the State legislatures, which made them accountable to the people back home via their elected representatives, and they were expected to look out for the State’s interests.
I don’t know about you, but I could not get close to my Senator much less engage her in conversation or even get her to listen to my concerns much less get a meaningful answer. Same goes for my State legislators.
A Constitutional Convention would be an unmitigated disaster in my view, because too many extremists who do not have the best interests of the Country in mind would have direct access to the very document that we base our whole society on. I’d rather fight the libs in the streets first.
I think the biggest problem with a Constitutional Convention is there are no longer any God-fearing educated men that are smart enough to do a better job than the original.
I certainly don't want to contradict myself, but I will say this:
I like self government. I do trust the people.
But between public education and the Left-dominated media, I'm not sure the people would get a fair opportunity to understand their own self-interest. Saying so does not invalidate the position that "self government is good".
I believe that a Constitutional Convention would be dominated by professional politicians (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, etc) and that private citiziens (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Huck, ClearCase_Guy, etc.) would be squeezed out.
The resulting document would be trumpeted by Chris Matthews and Jay Leno as the best thing ever, and would probably be ratified by NY, CA, MI and MA pretty quickly. With that kind of momentum, I bet a lot of other states would quickly follow.
The risks are too great. Our current Constitution isn't perfect but it lays out a framework of limited government, and it is still a fine idea. I look at the world around me and I see that the problem is with the men in power and the voters who put them there. The content of our current Constitution is NOT central to our current problems, IMO.
I'm not trying to hassle you, and I do appreciate your thoughtful reply, but I have to say, I think it DOES invalidate your position. We have to deal in reality. You can't say you believe in self-government, so long as it's not with the actual people. Theoretical people, yes. Real people, no. It doesn't work.
I believe that a Constitutional Convention would be dominated by professional politicians (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, etc) and that private citiziens (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Huck, ClearCase_Guy, etc.) would be squeezed out.
I wouldn't expect to be a delegate. The original convention was comprised of professional politicians, as well. Hell, in the original process, the people didn't even get to vote on the Constitution--that was done by state convention. We the people? Don't make me laugh.
The resulting document would be trumpeted by Chris Matthews and Jay Leno as the best thing ever, and would probably be ratified by NY, CA, MI and MA pretty quickly. With that kind of momentum, I bet a lot of other states would quickly follow.
In other words, the people are stupid and can be easily mislead. I might agree with you there, but it doesn't do much to bolster the self-government argument.
The risks are too great. Our current Constitution isn't perfect but it lays out a framework of limited government, and it is still a fine idea.
This is where I strongly disagree. The Constitution lays out a framework for national consolidated government. It does not accomplish its stated objectives of "few and defined" powers. Article 3 blows the whole thing out of the water.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the product of a modern Convention would be superior to what we have (it would most likely make explicit the implicit powers that already exist.) I'm arguing that it's the proper route to the exit. Simply don't ratify it, and withdraw from the union.
I think you are probably correct. The problem is that no one on "our" side is even seriously considering the question. All you get is moony love-odes to the founders, and to the Federalists, even though they were gravely mistaken about many things. Mixed sovereignty, the supreme judiciary, implied powers, etc.
All the way down to the grass roots, it is impossible for people to imagine a better system. They just rattle on absurdly about how great it would be "if only" people would follow the Constitution. As if everything that has occurred hasn't occurred under the Constitution.
AHHHHH! I see! I would strongly endorse such an approach.
The key would be setting the terms of ratification. And if a state didn't like the agreed terms of ratification, they could walk out of the convention and be done with it. They would need foreign support in case of trouble. They'd have to go to Russia or China or someplace and form an alliance as protection against aggression from the new US system.
The founders who forged our revolution against Britain, and then forged the revolution of consolidation (The Constitution) were THE players in America. The rich, the powerful, the famous. Middle class people like us won't make such a change occur. We don't know the right people. We're too busy making a living. It's really just a fantasy. But personally, I'd love to get out from under the Constitution and have an opportunity to make something better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.