We Need States

States are good.Read here for the opening pieces of the argument.

The way states are run is certainly a problem.But we certainly need a force between the men with the pitchforks and the men with the warheads.

Who said 'between'? One of the the most important functions of the States is to act as checks against the overshadowing and all-encompassing power of an out-of-control Federal government. I suppose when you've already broken both your legs the next logical thing to do is dislocate your shoulders and poke our your eyes.Err.... wait a minute...

After which no States were apparently added to the Union. Will one organization manage all that?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

There are many issues currently organized and maintained in the State governments and jurisdictions.The States and their organizations manage educational matters; maintain roads; etc.Until crashfrog lays out a better system for taking care of these necessities, his argument will remain all whine and no cheese.Aside from all the other arguments in favor of States, the simplest is that States do stuff that we need to have done, and there is no other system in place nor is there another system proposed for otherwise managing this 'stuff' without States (e.g., by means of 'local' and national efforts only).JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

The scope of said Constitution has been permitted as much as the States have allowed. And that same Constitution actually makes it clear that a large-enough body of States has the Constitutional authority to overrule the Federal government in any matter whatsoever by simply amending the Constitution to allow such an overruling. Yes, the same governments that possess the collective, Constitutional, and permitted power to completely abolish all aspects of the Federal government besides the Senate were it to act in ways deemed detrimental to interests of the relatively autonomous States and the people therein. Of course it is. You have argued that because States have no power to act in their interestssomething you just made up, all their other powers should be taken as well by abolishing States altogether. And this is a crap argument.Would your feelings on this matter be the same if Canada and Russia were to invade and overtake the U.S. as a nation? Our country's sovereignty being forcibly taken, would we be better off bringing the process 'to fruition' by abolishing the U.S. Or better off attempting to overthrow the oppressive force that has stolen our independence so that we may preserve the existence of our Nation?When a man has broken both your legs, the next logical thing to do is not to let him bash in your skull; if your political sovereignty has been takenagain, a claim about the States that is not true, there is nothing sensible about bringing the process 'to fruition' and allowing a complete end to your political existence unless, of course, you are a traitor to the political entity in question, a sympathizer with the oppressor's cause.Is that you, Crash?JonEdited by Jon, : Not finished...

The Federal government exists in its current form entirely because the States allowed it to come into existence; and it is allowed to exist in its current form entirely because the States have yet to dismantle ita power which they fully possess.The States giveth and the States can taketh away. The Supremacy Clause is just another example of a power that the States allow the Federal government to have and which the States have every authority to revoke."Yes, the laws you pass shall be supreme and binding on us; unless we decide that they shouldn't be."The entire fact that the States possess the ability to alter and even dismantle the Federal government at will means that the idea of the Federal government having real and unquestionably binding power over the States is just a mirage, since it is the States which possess the actual power to determine how the Federal government behaves and which powers it has. Again...The States giveth and the States can taketh away.

Sorry, Crash, but I don't have time to debate with people who can't even be bothered to read the stuff they are debating about.

quote:

---

Article V of the United States Constitution (emphasis added):

​

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

---

The only power the Congress has in the process of a decided majority of the States dissolving the Federal government is to choose which method the States will use to vote on the Amendment; and that is a power they were given by the States.And the only limit as to what changes can be made to the U.S. Constitution is that the decided majority of States cannot deny other States an equal voice in their collective meeting body. And that is itthe only limit on State power applies to what can be done to other States, not to what can be done to the Federal government.The only protection offered is for the States; the Federal government is completely at their mercy.And the people who actually work in the government know this:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Conventions:

​

Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.
...

​

States began applying to Congress for an Article V convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states short of the 34 needed to force such a convention. Enthusiasm for the amendment subsided in response to fears that an Article V convention could not be limited to a single subject and because Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which required that the budget be balanced by 1991 (but that Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986).

---

It is painfully obvious to anyone who has done their research that if so determined the States have the power to completely alter and even dissolve the structure of the Federal government and that the Federal government has no power in stopping this.Why else would the Federal government quake in its boots at the threat of a State-called convention?Probably because the only people they have defending them are you and a handful of poorly-educated 9th graders.Jon

Stop shifting goals. Your original statement spoke of 'willing participation' and 'assent'; now you speak of 'participation' only.If the States decide to alter the Constitution, the Federal government participates in as much as it makes a forced and formal declaration of the intent, and then does the legwork of calling and setting up a convention.And the Congress has no choice. They don't have to be 'willing' to call a convention; they don't have to 'assent' to the convention; they just have to make one happen because the States told them to. Period.The only way for the Federal government to avoid a convention called for by 2/3 the States that seeks to abolish the Federal government is to renege on their agreement, to default on their obligations under the contract. And one of them requires no consent of the Federal government. No; I'm merely capable of understanding the two already written. Too funny coming from the man who wasted a whole thread arguing against a position he was repeatedly told no one held.But you bring up a good point. I have clearly laid out the documents in question as well as my interpretation; you have laid out yours.The audience can decide for itself whose argument is more convincing. Unless there is something new to say, neither of us need waste more time repeating ourselves.Enjoy your weekend.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

We're done here, crash. I can't be bothered to discuss something with someone who cannot even read their own posts:

quote:

---

crashfrog in Message 45:

​

There's no way for the states to unilaterally contract any Federal power except by the willing participation of the Federal government.

---

You said that; just upthread.And then you woke up this morning, forgot what was going on, and started running 'round the forum crying foul in your typical fashion.The audience will decide indeed.Jon

Which is also an experiment; the experiment of "what happens when we don't change anything". And you're focusing on a single historical event to justify your ignorance of the examples given by Dr. A in support of his argument.It's the usual "if it can't be explained away, say it doesn't exist" tactic of yours; typically employed just before the "close your eyes and call your opponent a liar" charade.Well, have fun with yourself, and be sure to give your fist a break now and then.Jon

Once again you are inventing your opponent's argument to suit your fancy.You're also ignoring Dr. A's request to define what you mean by 'promotion'. What sort of a scenario qualifies as a 'promotion' of State policy into Federal policy? Perhaps you perceiving weaknesses in Dr. A's argument is more a sign of troubled perception on your part than of a troubled argument on his. Except, you know, the words your opponents are actually using to formulate their arguments.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.