I say, let them try. Let them show the people that they are at war with the states.
I, for one, am tired of people who talk themselves out of action because they presume a worst-case scenario as a foregone conclusion, and then give up entirely before even engaging the opposition.
Who knows what will ultimately happen? Who knows if the people will turn on Congress and support the states, or if Congress will suspend habeas corpus and crack down on the people?
Let's at least do something, and find out!
-PJ
“I for one, am tired of people who talk themselves out of action because they presume a worst-case scenario as a foregone conclusion, and then give up entirely before even engaging the opposition.”
Who said anything about being talked out of action? There is much that States can do, short of a Art V. that would go far to take back the gov’t. The Federalist Papers talk about this at length. The authors defended a federal government because the States were armed with enough tools to ensure that the fedgov didn’t get out of its box.
Try reading Federalist #46. It talks about the civil disobedience of States, basically telling the fedgov to go shove it.
The bottom line is this; you won’t get the Art V you want, telling the fedgov to go shove it unless and/or until the States decide that it’s more important to exert their autonomy than it is to drink from the fedtrough.
AT THAT MOMENT, when the States come around to pointed action, you don’t need an Art V. and you don’t need a majority of States to take back the gov’t. All you need is enough States to turn the tide and make operating the fedgov difficult.
Look at Obamacare. They did not expect so many States to opt out, and they’re in a bind because of it.
When the States are ready to act, they have the power to do so. IF, AFTER they’ve exhausted the tools of active disobedience, they find no other option, then an Art V. might be in order.
Who said anything about not acting? I’ve said that the States standing up for their sovereignty is enough. Until they do, there won’t be any change, and there certainly won’t be an Art V. convention.
“I for one, am tired of people who talk themselves out of action because they presume a worst-case scenario as a foregone conclusion, and then give up entirely before even engaging the opposition.”
Who said anything about being talked out of action? There is much that States can do, short of a Art V. that would go far to take back the gov’t. The Federalist Papers talk about this at length. The authors defended a federal government because the States were armed with enough tools to ensure that the fedgov didn’t get out of its box.
Try reading Federalist #46. It talks about the civil disobedience of States, basically telling the fedgov to go shove it.
The bottom line is this; you won’t get the Art V you want, telling the fedgov to go shove it unless and/or until the States decide that it’s more important to exert their autonomy than it is to drink from the fedtrough.
AT THAT MOMENT, when the States come around to pointed action, you don’t need an Art V. and you don’t need a majority of States to take back the gov’t. All you need is enough States to turn the tide and make operating the fedgov difficult.
Look at Obamacare. They did not expect so many States to opt out, and they’re in a bind because of it.
When the States are ready to act, they have the power to do so. IF, AFTER they’ve exhausted the tools of active disobedience, they find no other option, then an Art V. might be in order.
Who said anything about not acting? I’ve said that the States standing up for their sovereignty is enough. Until they do, there won’t be any change, and there certainly won’t be an Art V. convention.