I agree with you largely, at the same time this is designed to avoid a civil war. Aka if the federal government over reaches the states can reduce the central authority.
All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes.
For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today).
At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies.
I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.
Based on what evidence are we heading to a civil war conflict? I know partisanship is really high and such, but what recourses are failing so bad that we are heading into a situation that only armed conflict resolved?
Yes, some idiots tried to storm congress and extremism is a real problem, that isn’t an oddity of absolute occurrence. If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too
> If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too
That wasn’t exactly the same, that was people from an occupied territory using terrorism. That occupied territory was effectively converted to a “free trade zone” and other agreements were made for a treaty.
I’d argue something such as a convention of states may be a treaty or a negotiated settlement with the government that’s necessary.
In terms of a civil war this is a pretty common opinion
We have half the country with different values. To the point where people in Florida today can’t travel to NYC and eat food at a restaurant inside (unless private medical records are disclosed).
Take a step back to history. Nazis in Germany or marxists in Russia took power in a similar way. They had burnings of businesses, removal of statues, firing people for not being part of the party, concentrating them based on the fact they spread disease (Germanys excuse for concentrating undesirables in camps in the 30s).
Yes, we are already in the throes of a civil war, it just hasn’t been (too) kinetic yet. I personally don’t know if it will be a civil war or authoritarian take over, but what ever happens I think there’s a struggle happening right now.
I guess I see this differently. I see the last gasp of the Republican Party more than anything, as the younger you go (and not terribly younger, at that[0]), they are losing influence, and are trying every trick in the book to maintain that influence.
Note too, that things like the statues being removed tend to be because we are finally acknowledging our historical issues, like having prominent statues celebrating slave owners may not be a trend we want to continue, its not being done in way to silence political opposition. Is there any reason we need to hold slave owners in such high esteem we keep statues around of them? Even our founders don't deserve to be forever enshrined in the American conscious in that way, no?
The thing people forget about the Nazi rise to power is it wasn't just predicated out of nowhere, it was a ripe time where the beliefs espoused by the Nazi party where a lot more popular and acceptable in that era, unfortunately.
> The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies.
They believe in state's rights in theory, but I'm not sure they do in practice. The right in the US has repeatedly sought national mechanisms to address issues that they would theoretically consider states rights (abortion, gay marriage, etc).
I'd also love to hear your definition of "Marxist" and how you believe California's state policies are Marxist.
> (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today)
Citation? As it originally reads, the purpose as written is for the people to keep and bear arms for use within a well-regulated militia. The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1]. This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships.
> The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1].
That's not really a fair reading of Presser. That case merely upheld Cruikshank and by extension Barron. Since the Second Amendment was only a limitation on Congress (pre-incorporation) the State could effectively do anything. Presser just added on that States couldn't go so far as to deprive the Federal government the resource of the militia.
> This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships.
People definitely had their own canons and ships back in the day and it wasn't solely a United States thing [1].
As written, the First Amendment restricts Congress, while the Second restricts at least all parties to the document, both Federal and State levels. Obviously, such plain readings aren't popular.
These were called "privateers", and they were very, very common all through the Age of Sail, not just in the United States, but in essentially all countries with a merchant or naval service.
How it worked was that during the (rare) intervals of peace, you'd keep a stockpile of guns on shore, and run your ship as a more or less ordinary merchant vessel (virtually all of which were armed at the time, though not as heavily armed as a naval vessel or a kitted-out privateer).
When war broke out, as it always did eventually, you'd cram your ship to the gills with guns and crew and get a license from some government (not necessarily your own!) to cruise against that government's enemy. This was called a "letter of marque". It was entirely possible for a (say) Dutch privateer to get a letter of marque from the (say) British government to attack (say) French vessels.
Normally privateers would limit themselves to attacking enemy merchant ships, or occasionally looting enemy ports, as their primary motivation was profit. They typically did not want to tangle with full-blown naval vessels.
Privateers were outlawed in the 19th Century by an international treaty signed by most countries. Interestingly, the United States has never signed that treaty.
The relevant constitutional authority in the United States is Article I Section 8, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal".
The advantage to the government was that it effectively had a secondary navy it could hot-swap in without having to pay to support it during peacetime.
The advantage to the privateers was that they got to keep the lion's share of the value of any ship, and any ship's cargo, they captured (the government did take a rakeoff, of course, because that is what governments do). It was essentially legalized piracy.
Figure out how much an entire container ship would be worth if you were allowed to just go out and grab one, and you'll be in the right ballpark, except back then it was expensive spices, precious metals, silk, etc. rather than electronic trinkets.
Though it was obviously a high-risk business, some privateer owners (and even crews) became incredibly wealthy from this practice.
Into the early 1800's, privately-owned warships were not at all rare. During the Revolutionary War the vast majority of the Navy consisted of privateers (aka private citizens warships).
Thank you all for your replies. I suppose I was meaning battleships in modern day (since I assumed that's what was meant to what I was replying), but the historical context is interesting and relevant.
All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes.
For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today).
At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies.
I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.
reply