Article V is less of a long shot is much to be preferred.
If succession succeeds it marks the beginning of a host of problems as each remnant is weaker and more vulnerable but if Article V produces real reform it marks the dawn of a better day.
Article V is less of a long shot is much to be preferred.
If succession succeeds it marks the beginning of a host of problems as each remnant is weaker and more vulnerable but if Article V produces real reform it marks the dawn of a better day.
There isn't going to be any choice in the matter. The USA will splinter along state lines when the world wide economic calamity causes the Greatest Depression ever seen. The states will leave the USA and try to survive on their own, shedding the debts and obligations accursed over 200 years of fiscal abuse.
It is going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.
Fyi: It is secession not succession. :)
I believe we should explore the fourteenth amendment section three also
I would say we have a case for kicking them all out every supporter of gun control on a federal level.
I believe your wrong.
The point of the secession would not be to separate from the fed gov as much as it would be to separate from the PEOPLE who voted for (and will ALWAYS vote for) socialists.
There are a rather significant number of people in this country and other states that would like nothing more than to submit to their government. In fact, Ill raise that and offer that they WILL NOT REST until they clasp the chains upon themselves and everyone else. As long as we continue our association with these people we will never be free. Never. I dont care what we try to do within the system. I dont care how the constitution may be rewritten. These people are PASSIONATELY YEARNING to be subjects of the collective, they will continue to ignore whatever we put in place. They will break laws as they see fit and they will continue their long slow march to slavery.
These are the folks we are separating from. These are the folks that may attack us if we do... and these are the folks that i just may enjoy seeing in the cross hairs of my scope or up close and personal if that day comes.
I understand that it comforts you to believe this union of states can be restored in its current geographical state of being. I understand that you are afraid of what may come if we do what is necessary. I also understand that some folks just cant let go, they go down with the ship because they JUST. CANT. LET. GO.
Be careful what’cha ask for. As conservatives seeking to amend the constitution, the too (socialist/communist) can muster enough support to throw in a few surprises as well.
In some ways, an article V convention could end up not being as fruitful as we'd expect or hoped.
And, Article V seems to be catching the eyes of many right now. I think it should be given a chance.
Ref “Secession is a futile dream which could become a nightmare......
If succession succeeds it marks the beginning of a host of problems as each remnant is weaker and more vulnerable but if Article V produces real reform it marks the dawn of a better day.”
It is a course fraught with danger. But it appears highly unlikely that continuing down the current path is any safer. Which is why it is imperative for the county civil structures under the protection of the sheriffs and their appointed posses with full respect to the law and order.
Ref: “Article V is less of a long shot is much to be preferred.”
I would argue the opposite as Hamilton did in (in referring to an additional convention to add the protections included in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution before ratification). As I pointed out in the book:
“There is a current movement to produce Amendments to the Constitution through a Constitutional Convention requested by the legislatures of two thirds of the states. However, this process, which has never been successfully used, is subject to many of the same pitfalls, short cuts, lawsuits, and backroom deals which any other legislative move is subjected to. In Federalist Paper No. 85, Alexander Hamilton noted “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded.” While Hamilton stated this in discussing the argument of whether states should hold another convention to address changes before the original ratification of the Constitution, his observation continues to ring true with regard to a Convention of States.
One only need to look at the current status of the call. Although 34 state legislatures have standing calls for a convention as of April 2014 , the Speaker of the house has yet to determine if this is sufficient to meet the Constitutional mandate for the Congress to convene a convention. Even if the Speaker calls a convention, there are groups such as Occupy Wall Street’s Wolf Pack which will attempt to high-jack the movements to preserve states’ rights through a balanced budget amendment with riders and amendments to limit the freedom of political speech for corporations.”