You made the claim not me. Support it if you can.
And this is why I hate Communism and Socialism with a passion.
Keep in mind, the Constitution is the very document that gives you your abortion rights, apparently. Abortion goes away if you Ctrl-Alt-Delete the Constitution. Choose wisely.
Actually abortion is nowhere to be found in it. It was a complete end around of The Constitution that allowed for the Roe decision.
Exactly. But that is the leftist’s logic.
Same way the Articles of Confederation were dissolved. States meet, write a new constitution, congress approves new constitution. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it.
Unilateral secession was and is viewed as illegal. A nation creating and adopting a new constitution is unilateral secession?
Is self determination the right of all people?
Regulated capitalism, I agree.
Allan
[
That took every single state agreeing to drop the old articles and agreeing to the new articles. There were none left to complain.
In theory, that was the difference between ending the original articles and a certain number of states wanting to replace the Constitution in 1860.
In practice, you will not again get every state to agree to dissolve the current Constitution.
What number of states does it take to make it no longer unilateral and it becomes acceptable? Obviously, 11, 12 or 13 states was not enough states to dissolve the Constitution in those states. Every state would be enough, presumably, based on the end of the Articles of Confederation. What about every state but one? If Wyoming didn’t agree, would that block ending the current Constitution and make the attempt “treason”?
there hasn’t been “unregulated” capitalism.
No one is claiming that it is infallible. It can be changed at any time. But until it is changed (again,) it stands as written and previously amended. It cannot be ignored simply because you don’t agree with it. If you do that, you may as well throw it in the trash. And THAT would be radical.
It’s pretty simple. If the secession is approved by the state or states seceding and the central government, it’s no longer unilateral. The number of states doesn’t matter. I still don’t equate a state/region/whatever seceding from an existing unified government and an existing unified government deciding to adopt a new constitution, but whatever.
The then federal government/Confederation Congress called for what would become the constitutional convention. The proposed constitution was submitted back to the Confederation Congress who then submitted it to the states to ratify. Before submitting it to the states, the then congress even had a two day debate on if the delegates should be censured for overstepping their bounds.
There was nothing unilateral about it. The states and then central government were working in tandem to enact a new constitution. The Confederation Congress even certified the new constitution on September 13th, 1788.
Maybe of more importance, Article VII states only 9 out of the 13 states were needed to ratify the Constitution. 9 out of 13 was the number needed to ensure a majority of the population (yes, population) agreed with the new constitution. See what Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Again though, a government and the states working to create a new government is neither unilateral nor secession. I think there are many ways in which it could occur. The bottom line is that if some majority of the states, population and congress agree with a new constitution, it could happen.
Who is advocating ignoring the Constitution?
Careful what you wish for.
You cite maybe 4 countries in your example, but I’m pretty sure Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia among other also run as you suggest the US be run.
Would you say the human rights situation in those places I just outlined is very good?
Why would someone suggest the US be run like any of those countries? If you write your own constitution you get to dictate how your country is run. So, unless you want to be a single party communist state, dictatorship or semi-presidential system, you don’t write your constitution to allow it.
It’s interesting that some people believe if the US were to write a new constitution it would entail abandoning everything in the existing constitution and all current American values. A new constitution does not mandate abandoning everything that came before it.
Do you honestly think the people of China, North Korea, Cuba. and Russia wanted a totalitarain state?!?!
Wow…just wow.
Let me put this another way.
We just got done with 4 years of a President you swore up and down was the living re-incarnation of Adolph Hitler, with a little Joseph Stalin thrown in to add spice.
And now you pine for a system of governance where it would literally be child’s play for someone such as Adolph Hitler to actually seize the kind of power you claim Trump wanted (this actually happened in Germany btw).
Have you thought any of this through?
3 Likes
This guy:
"It’s radical to me that people think a document written by over 200 years ago is an infallible document to be preserved and adhered to at all costs.
I’ve always found it odd that we, as a nation, will fight and die for the right of people in foreign lands to self govern.
But talk about that here at home and it’s “nope, you can’t do that, it’s illegal!”
2 Likes
