We Need States

That's not an experiment and control, that's two experiments. No, if we have a single national policy we have no "experiment" at all. That's the point. It's obvious, though. Not examples of "promotion", though.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I disagree. I think it's a perfect name for a country formed from the unification of 50 states into a single nation."United States of America", on the other hand, is a pretty worthless name for a country formed from 50 states that refuse to unite.

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

As it happens, it was exactly Article V I was referring to, and it's clear that you've quoted the article without even reading it.Congress either proposes the amendments or convenes the conventions. You keep asserting this hypothetical third path, where the states can convene on their own and amend the Constitution without the participation of Congress, but that doesn't fucking exist. There's no such procedure for amending the Constitution. It's just something you made up.The Constitution specifies only two procedures to amend the Constitution. You keep asserting that there's a third way but there's no such thing. You keep saying "given by the states" like that means something. Maybe you don't understand what "give" means. It may have been given by the states but having been given, it belongs to the Federal government. The states have no power to take it back unless the Federal government gives it to them.That, after all, was the legal basis behind the Civil War; the states took a look at the expansion of Federal power into the practice of slavery to which they objected, decided that they would take back their bequeath of Federal power - and were surprised to find that they had no legal ability to do so under the US Constitution. Hence, they started a war of treason. What's painfully obvious is that rather than read the material that is plainly before you, you'd rather make this up from whole cloth. It's kind of your thing, Jon. That's why when the two of us talk, nobody thinks you're the one who knows what he's talking about.

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.

Stop lying. Here's what I actually said:

quote:

---

There are only two ways to amend the US Constitution, and they both require the participation and therefore the assent of the Federal government.

---

I don't see the word "willing" in there. You should have checked before you misrepresented me and accused me of shifting goals. Didn't you think I would?And moreover Congress has to organize the Constitutional Convention if that's what the states decide to call. But the Constitution doesn't stipulate when they have to do it, which means that it's subject to the same restrictions and veto points as any other legislation in Congress. I.e. it could be filibustered, tabled, held indefinitely by a single anonymous senator, etc.So, yes, Congress's willing participation is required. There's no way to contract Federal power without the participation of the Federal government, and the states have no power for force Federal participation in anything. People tell me many things. For instance, you told me that I had said "willing participation" when I actually hadn't. I guess the difference between you and me is, I'm not so gullible that I believe anonymous people on the internet when they lie straight to my face. You know, like you just tried to do. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

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

What I said was what I quoted, from message 45:

quote:

---

Not without amending the US Constitution. There are only two ways to amend the US Constitution, and they both require the participation and therefore the assent of the Federal government. There's no way for the states to unilaterally contract any Federal power except by the willing participation of the Federal government. Even if the states bring suit to do so, that suit won't affect the Federal government until the Supreme Court has ruled - and there's your Federal participation in the process.

---

Your contention that I've shifted the goal posts is a lie. Just a flat-out lie, Jon. Between the two of us, why do you think you could convince anybody that you have a better idea of what I actually said than I do? That you're a liar, Jon? They already know. They've known since our last Jesus thread, last year, because that's what you do when faced with an argument you can't rebut - you either lie and pretend it didn't exist, or lie and pretend that your opponent said something he didn't say. You're the least honest evolutionist at EvC, and that's saying something, because that's a sample set that includes Holmes, aka "Silent H." (Eh, look it up.)

Please focus on the issues and not on personal integrityEdited by AdminPhat, : reframed comment

How about I do that, and you enforce the forum guidelines for once?

What do you think "control" means? Not so much. Hence my request for some sort of justification of your point. No? What does "promotion" look like? Here we have things which were tried in one state or some states before being adopted federally. What makes a thing a "promotion" or not?

The control is the group that doesn't receive the experiment. You're eliding a stupendous amount of history in order to make Federalism seem like an orderly process of promoting the results of state experimentation to Federal law. It just doesn't work like that at all. For instance, the emancipation of slavery in America was hardly a process where a couple of states said "hey, what if we didn't have slaves anymore?" and then after a few years, everybody in Congress was like "well, we had wanted to emancipate all slaves, but we weren't sure how it would work out. But it worked great in Maryland and Massachusetts, so let's do it!"As maybe you heard once, there was a little bit more of a fracas about it, a little dust-up we called "the Civil War." In the end, the experiences of the free states contributed literally nothing to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation or the Thirteenth Amendment. Even the few states that had flipped from slave to free hadn't done so by means of a single, sweeping act of emancipation. So how then can the laws of the states have been said to inform Lincoln's acts?

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

No, I'm maintaining that they can all be dismissed for the same reason, and then giving a supporting example. I guess I could be exhaustive at every step, but having been informed that I don't accept his examples on the basis of not being examples of laws being promoted from the state level to the Federal level by an orderly process, the onus is on Dr. A to show that I'm wrong and they are examples of that. In other words, I'm asking him to be more convincing by expanding his argument to address the weaknesses I perceive in it, weaknessess like those I found in the "emancipation of the slaves" example.I'm not ignoring anything.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

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.