The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

[St. Clown]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Can you imagine a Constitutional Convention under present circumstances?

I cannot envision a circumstance under which it would be better for the country to actually throw out and rewrite the Constitution, up to and including splitting into the two nations we always should have been. Better a thousand years of tyranny than one night with the current Congress rewriting the Constitution.

I would say that the only thing they missed in the original drafting of the document was to establish a process for states to exit the union peacefully. That would've been helpful some 154 years ago.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

I would say that the only thing they missed in the original drafting of the document was to establish a process for states to exit the union peacefully. That would've been helpful some 154 years ago.

Don't feel bad. The EU made the same oversight 130 years later.

IMO it should be simple -- a state referendum and if a simple majority favors it, you're gone. I'd also pass a law that a state that secedes can't be readmitted for some period (say, 20 years) to avoid churn.

The hardcore would leave*, and the guys who remain wouldn't be able to whine about "federal fascism" because they wake up and make their bed every day. It would really moderate rhetoric.

* Texas would be buh-bye before the ink was dry; talk about a win-win. Leave your nukes at the door on the way out, and good luck maintaining a first world economy with your faith-based educational system.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Don't feel bad. The EU made the same oversight 130 years later.

IMO it should be simple -- a state referendum and if a simple majority favors it, you're gone. I'd also pass a law that a state that secedes can't be readmitted for some period (say, 20 years) to avoid churn.

The hardcore would leave*, and the guys who remain wouldn't be able to whine about "federal fascism" because they wake up and make their bed every day. It would really moderate rhetoric.

* Texas would be buh-bye before the ink was dry; talk about a win-win. Leave your nukes at the door on the way out, and good luck maintaining a first world economy with your faith-based educational system.

That's a large part of it, but I was also thinking of things such as federal assets located in the state beyond things like portable military assets. Would that state have to pay back the feds for a dam project or various administration buildings before being able to exit the union or would there be a treaty of some sort to reclaim that property value?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

That's a large part of it, but I was also thinking of things such as federal assets located in the state beyond things like portable military assets. Would that state have to pay back the feds for a dam project or various administration buildings before being able to exit the union or would there be a treaty of some sort to reclaim that property value?

I'm sure the lawsuits would stretch into the year 2525. There are precedents, like the breakup of Czechoslovakia.

(I have a feeling when the Russians annexed the Crimea the Ukrainian government lost any assets it had there. "Bill me.")

It would be extremely salutary to have an out clause in the Constitution, even if it were never exercised. It would really cut down on the crackers' irresponsible tub-thumping because put up or shut up.

Interesting discussion somewhat related here.

 

[joecct]

That's a large part of it, but I was also thinking of things such as federal assets located in the state beyond things like portable military assets. Would that state have to pay back the feds for a dam project or various administration buildings before being able to exit the union or would there be a treaty of some sort to reclaim that property value?

And would New York have to pay for the cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway? Call it even on Feds developed projects.

But would the country split North / South as Kepler suggests, or would it split West / Central / South / East with central and south joining in one country and the coasts and the great lakes forming another?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Can you imagine a Constitutional Convention under present circumstances?

I cannot envision a circumstance under which it would be better for the country to actually throw out and rewrite the Constitution, up to and including splitting into the two nations we always should have been. Better a thousand years of tyranny than one night with the current Congress rewriting the Constitution.

The current Congress rewriting the Constitution would result in a thousand years of tyranny.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

And would New York have to pay for the cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway? Call it even on Feds developed projects.

But would the country split North / South as Kepler suggests, or would it split West / Central / South / East with central and south joining in one country and the coasts and the great lakes forming another?

I don't think the country would "split," although I think that would be a good idea. If the slave states and a few like-minded prairie brethren had an organized, confederated secession and formation of a new union, they might make it. But if they just fragmented away, they'd become Instant Failed States. The Republic of Louisiana is no more of a free-standing entity than the Central African Republic. The US wouldn't want failed states on its borders so it would wind up supporting them with huge levels of aid -- i.e., nothing would change from today.

It must suck just as much for Sparta to be stuck with Athens as vice-versa. The "original sin" of the US is not actually slavery, it's the Sleeping with the Enemy marriage of two completely different cultures with paradoxically similar value systems but radically different views of how to instrumentally achieve them. Give disunion a chance.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

The current Congress rewriting the Constitution would result in a thousand years of tyranny.

If nothing else, it would result in a Constitution that was several million pages long.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

I don't think the country would "split," although I think that would be a good idea. If the slave states and a few like-minded prairie brethren had an organized, confederated secession and formation of a new union, they might make it. But if they just fragmented away, they'd become Instant Failed States. The Republic of Louisiana is no more of a free-standing entity than the Central African Republic. The US wouldn't want failed states on its borders so it would wind up supporting them with huge levels of aid -- i.e., nothing would change from today.

It must suck just as much for Sparta to be stuck with Athens as vice-versa. The "original sin" of the US is not actually slavery, it's the Sleeping with the Enemy marriage of two completely different cultures with paradoxically similar value systems but radically different views of how to instrumentally achieve them. Give disunion a chance.

One common thread with fascist regimes in history is that world domination is an end goal. I don't see this as any different. Third Reich and New World Order may be different in terminology, but they seem to have the same goal. Even look atthe British Empire, the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and so on. Disunion, as much as it sounds like a good idea, is not something that I see as actually happening. The government would become even more oppressive. After all, look at how the federalists went after the southern states during the Reconstruction period.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

One common thread with fascist regimes in history is that world domination is an end goal. I don't see this as any different. Third Reich and New World Order may be different in terminology, but they seem to have the same goal. Even look atthe British Empire, the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and so on. Disunion, as much as it sounds like a good idea, is not something that I see as actually happening. The government would become even more oppressive. After all, look at how the federalists went after the southern states during the Reconstruction period.

So you're of the school "we cannot flee, we must prevail!" No -- that leads to a lot more trouble than a mutual hands off.

Plus it is fair to let the South try its experiment and see if it works. I have no doubt they'll fall right on their faces, but better to run two independent trials and compare. We already know the liberalized socialism-lite of Scandinavia works. The North trial is only a way for English-speaking people to live in a good country.

The all-encompassing world-dominating ideology we live under is neo-liberal capitalism. It's the first totalitarian system that actually won -- it conquered the world. The question is whether a system that wins, that has no "outside," is eternal. I highly doubt it; I think it will crumble, though it may literally destroy the physical environment of the earth before it does.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

And would New York have to pay for the cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway? Call it even on Feds developed projects.

But would the country split North / South as Kepler suggests, or would it split West / Central / South / East with central and south joining in one country and the coasts and the great lakes forming another?

At least that would get Arizona out of the Ninth Circuit!

 

[Rover]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

I'd suggest all of you crackpots read up on the writings of Honest Abe Lincoln for your homework assignment, a guy who covered this 150 years ago. As Lincoln correctly theorized, one breakup of the country would not be the end. Eventually those pieces would squabble and break up, and pretty soon you'd be left with a smattering of countries with little influence in the world to the amusement of our enemies. All these years later, the dude still knew what he was talking about!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

So you're of the school "we cannot flee, we must prevail!" No -- that leads to a lot more trouble than a mutual hands off.

Plus it is fair to let the South try its experiment and see if it works. I have no doubt they'll fall right on their faces, but better to run two independent trials and compare. We already know the liberalized socialism-lite of Scandinavia works. The North trial is only a way for English-speaking people to live in a good country.

The all-encompassing world-dominating ideology we live under is neo-liberal capitalism. It's the first totalitarian system that actually won -- it conquered the world. The question is whether a system that wins, that has no "outside," is eternal. I highly doubt it; I think it will crumble, though it may literally destroy the physical environment of the earth before it does.

I'm not of that school; I'd love to see two separate countries. I've always been of the belief that the USA is too large to handle the federal policies it tries to handle. The key word to your mutual hands off, though, is "mutual". That is, both sides must agree. The fascist side has clearly shown that they will not agree to that. Lincoln was a prime example of that. You're preaching to the choir when it comes to your concept. I'm trying to cross-examine by showing the challenges that will arise in execution. I think it's safe to assume that we'd both like to avoid War of Northern Aggression II.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

I'd suggest all of you crackpots read up on the writings of Honest Abe Lincoln for your homework assignment, a guy who covered this 150 years ago. As Lincoln correctly theorized, one breakup of the country would not be the end. Eventually those pieces would squabble and break up, and pretty soon you'd be left with a smattering of countries with little influence in the world to the amusement of our enemies. All these years later, the dude still knew what he was talking about!

Let them split, then. There's nothing wrong with autonomous collectives. Only when said communes start to get greedy and take over each other do we have an issue.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

And they will...the amount of war that would result from the breakup would be staggering. The US would end up reforming because of it...only it would have more scorched Earth, way less money and fewer people.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

As Lincoln correctly theorized, one breakup of the country would not be the end. Eventually those pieces would squabble and break up, and pretty soon you'd be left with a smattering of countries with little influence in the world to the amusement of our enemies.

1. We don't know if he was correct.
2. The 19th century was a very different world from the 21st century.
3. The US' global position is completely different.
4. We're just too big for our institutions to work well anymore. US pop in 1850 was 23M -- smaller than Texas' current pop. (There were 5M in 1800 -- current pop of Colorado.)

 

[joecct]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Prince Harry of Nevada will not seek re-election. A pick up or a successful defend?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Prince Harry of Nevada will not seek re-election. A pick up or a successful defend?

Either way, everybody wins, except NV who joins WV and HI as states who went from bulletproof Congressional leadership slots to absolutely zero influence. Hope they saved some of their graft for a rainless day.

 

[joecct]

Either way, everybody wins, except NV who joins WV and HI as states who went from bulletproof Congressional leadership slots to absolutely zero influence. Hope they saved some of their graft for a rainless day.

So who will be the new leader? Chuck, "I've never met a camera I didn't like" Schumer?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

So who will be the new leader? Chuck, "I've never met a camera I didn't like" Schumer?

...unless he gets defeated in 2016. And no, I cannot say that with a straight face.