What If the 50 States Joined Together and Formed a New Federal Government? (Vanity)

March 24, 2010 | lmsii

[lmsii]

Just a Question for Discussion.

What would the existing Federal Government do?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

No choice in the matter. But if congress refuses, then the individual States go ahead and convene. But while creating their rules, they include a provision to prevent federal government interference. They may resolve to relieve and replace officials, officers, and employees. They can likewise order them imprisoned until after the convention is dissolved.

[Oceander]

The existing federal government would no longer exist. You would have a de facto constitutional convention that, just as the original convention in 1789, overstepped its apparent authority but was then ratified after the fact by the parties involved.

You wouldn't really need all 50 states, either. The middle section of the country could almost certainly secede en-masse, leaving the husks of the burnt-out liberal fascist state on the two left coasts to burn itself out (i.e., California and New York get omitted - California might be acceptable if it agreed to come in as several different, smaller states, perhaps having ceded some territory to other, more trustworthy states; New York would be acceptable so long as downstate - basically everything that constitutes the greater metropolitan sphere of influence of the Sodom and Gomorrah of NYC - is left to fend for itself). Massachusetts should probably not be invited in, either, although, again, the western part of the state might be unobjectionable provided that the greater Boston metropolitan area is jettisoned into the Atlantic.

[Pan_Yan]

I think the US should break up into 5 regional countries.

But we should all collectively maintain a military.

I think we already tried that once, but with 13 regions.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The trouble is that until 1913, paying for the national government was a major problem.

A major Supreme Court decision was that the feds could not directly tax the States.

When Andrew Jackson created tariffs to pay for the government, South Carolina voted to “nullify” the tariff (what is old is new again, huh?). But Jackson threatened to take the army to SC, and “hang” every person who voted for it. So SC rescinded the nullification, knowing that Jackson was a murderous SOB, and loved nothing better than hanging people.

Two years after the Panic of 1893, the US government came close to bankruptcy. This, more than anything else, persuaded them that they needed a reliable income.

[bert]

it only takes 26. That is a pelosian majority

[Partisan Gunslinger]

It would be a new government, new constitution (that would like exactly like the old one, but hey).

Actually, now that we see what went wrong we can fix the Constitution as we rewrite it.
1. Make it unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in setting interest rates of banks. Have our economy based on value, not debt. Money is currently created by controlling debt...this causes wild fluctuations in confidence and money supply which leads to depressions and recessions. Get the government out of the banks...create citizen's accounts for people to do trade and save their nest eggs and run the entitlements through those accounts so the money is not lost through inept politicians. Debit cards can be issued to the public so that the money will stay in-country preventing panics which lead to bank runs and depressions and recessions.
2. Lay out specifically, with detailed numbers and percentages, the number of ways and the rates at which the citizenry will be taxed and make it unconstitutional to exceed that number and those rates. I see only 5 or 6 ways the government should be able to take in revenue: Income tax, land tax (not buildings), perhaps infrastructure usage fees, loser pays court costs on civil judgments, restitution for economic criminal activity, and the purchase of legal tender. Make it unconstitutional for the government to collect money through any other means. Sin taxes absolutely forbidden. A substance is either legal or illegal, not a revenue generator.
3. Make gold the only legal tender. We have the technology now to make gold coins coated with resin (to prevent shaving) to use exclusively. The problem with mixing metals in the currency is one metal will rise in spot price while the other falls. That's one reason we couldn't stick with the current constitution regarding gold and silver currency. We can make the gold content as small as 12 cents in a resin-coated coin. There is now no need for fiat currency. Most of the coinage can be kept in the citizens accounts, the debit cards preventing the people from having to carry around a lot of coinage.
4. Only land owners may vote, so that only the full taxpayers are deciding policy.
5. Upon turning 18, a citizen must publically declare his/her support for the constitution and the main principles of it to receive land purchasing rights and therefore voting rights. This declaration will be video-recorded for anyone to view through the internet or whatever public media of the time.
6. Immigration only to those that believe Jesus is the only son of God and the greatest prophet. Muslims, atheists, and followers of abominable religions always lead a country to death and destruction.
7. Make the laws biased toward information rather than nanny-statism. Make companies and citizens give full-disclosure for their products and services so the public can make their individual decisions on whether to do business with them rather than having the government over-regulate.

That's the changes I would start with.

[MrB]

No “rewrite” will be effective unless Americans return to being a moral and religious people.

[sadamico]

Bump for later

[Pan_Yan]

Got an opinion on this one?

[rhombus]

I’ve read the Constitution as well as the Preamble to the Constitution which you wrote defines this “right”. It ain’t there. I think what you are referring to is the Declaration of Independence. If you want to condemn Lincoln I think you need to start by first condemning Son of the South, George Washington who first called out the Militia to put down a rebellion in Western Pennsylvania (cf. The Whiskey Rebellion). Later, he came out of retirement to condemn another rebellion in Massachusetts (Shay’s Rebellion). If anyone set a precedent for preserving the union by use of force it was Washington.

[Earthdweller]

If you do...take the Constitution with you...they aren’t using it.

[x]

The south had the perfectly legitimate right to break off from the Union in the 1860s, but the North(honest Abe in particular)didn't see it that way, they used their superior industrial power to crush the south(who seceded peacefully)and force them to accept the will of the feds.

That is your opinion. Other people at the time did not believe that there was any right to unilateral secession. There was no authoritative settled answer to that question in the 1860s. That's why there was a war.

[AFreeBird]

According to Article V: If my reading is correct, 2/3's of the states can call for an amendment/convention without the need for congress to approve. Which makes sense, since all amendments are ratified by the states anyway. It will still take 3/4's of the states to ratify the amendment. Congress (2/3's of) can of course can propose their own amendments, but that does not preclude the states from getting together and doing so without Congressional approval.

This is The United "STATES" after all.

And the founders saw fit to give them the means. The will to do so is another matter.

[Let's Roll]

“Do we have to take all 50?”

My first question too. You better build one big^ssed wall around the productive red states or they will be infested before the ink is dry on the ‘new’ gov paperwork.

[AFreeBird]

4. Only land owners may vote, so that only the full taxpayers are deciding policy.

You're gonna have problems with that. Lots of people have been renting so that they can bug out quickly. It doesn't mean that their not taxpayers.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Guess he wouldn’t favor the Confederacy.

Jefferson changed his positions a lot on these issues. Didn't he [unofficially, since he was VP] support the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in the (John) Adams administration?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Shay's rebellion incident up in Massachusetts

Shay's Rebellion occurred under the Articles of Confederation and was a motivation for calling the Constitutional Convention.

[LS]

Yes. He was inconsistent (as was Madison, who went through three personal iterations-—centralist, states’ rights, centralist).

[LS]

Yes, GW did pardon the traitors, unlike Andrew Jackson, who shot a Brit and hanged another suspected (just suspected) of inciting the Indians.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Immigration only to those that believe Jesus is the only son of God and the greatest prophet.

'No Jews Need Apply'? I can''t support that.