I suggest you educate yourself.
This book is a good place to start:
Posted on 01/06/2015 11:16:23 AM PST by Jacquerie
Today’s reelection of John Boehner proves there is but one party, the Uniparty.
Political parties represent the common interests of their members, and to this end the two wings of the Uniparty have far more in common than differences. Their rhetoric often contrasts, but their mutual interests are on display. Witness the fifth year of Obamacare, out of control spending, executive and judicial tyranny. Both wings despise the Tea Party more than each other.
The framers’ constitution wisely divided power and provided checks that reached across the branches. Congress can deny appropriations, congress can override presidential vetoes, the senate can refuse consent to presidential nominees, high political appointees and president can be impeached, and so forth. Unfortunately, these important checks have dissolved into practical uselessness. Gone are the contesting institutional interests between the branches which the framers relied upon to prevent tyranny. They are one.
The common interests of the Uniparty are avarice and ambition, money and power. All else, even at the cost of the destruction of our economy, civil institutions, cities . . . everything else plays a minor role if any in their deliberations.
This is precisely the form of tyranny warned of by James Madison, in which all power resides in the hands of a backslapping few.
Freeepers have variously called for a real opposition party. Well, one exists. It is right in front of us. Its members have interests distinct from Washington, DC. They have sovereign powers, generally those which they did not grant to the government they created in 1788. They are fully capable of policing their environment, dealing with labor unions, taking care of their poor, etc. without the heavy hand of a distant, detached, and hostile Rome like city-state.
There is nothing radical in returning the states to the senate. To do so means reversing the tyranny and restoration of republican freedom. There is no substitute.
Article V.
What would y’all suggest instead?
Most State legislatures are part time gigs. Most legislators are small business owners who know very well the burdens imposed through Washington mandates. They are not timid, retiring people. So yes, by and large I believe that most would welcome the opportunity to freely govern their states.
I suggest you educate yourself.
This book is a good place to start:
and your solution is?
So you favor doing nothing?
All these smart people who are spinning their wheels on a doomed process should stop, use their smarts to assess the problem, and come up with a solution that will really stop the tyranny. Put all their effort into nullification, secession, etc. Read “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” as if it’s as relevant for us now as it was for Patrick Henry then.
All peaceful options must be exhausted. Or do you propose violence before we even try?
I don’t really know the answer to that. I do think that it should be made explicit that we know this process won’t really work.
What is your solution?
Why? Your options will still be just as available after a COS fails as they are now. Would the people support another civil war without exhausting all peaceful options first?
But we don't know that, do we?
Okay, well that should be explained.
Buy good military type firearms, lots of ammunition, and cache them.
That figures.
Israel has to have an army and all the apparatus of a national government because its neighbors have armies which could attack.
Virginia doesn't need its own army because Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee don't have their own armies.
Maybe the state's resources are better applied to other, peaceful and commercial, activities. Or do you really think Virginia's or Maryland's interests are best served by making nuclear weapons and aiming them across the Potomac at each other.
Is it really so hard to understand?
Compared to you and me, maybe, but politicians who really want power gravitate to Washington.
Those who stay home may really want to run their own business (as you say) and not take on all the governmental responsibilities that Washington DC has now. There's a process of self-selection: the most ambitious politicians leave the state legislatures for the US Congress and those who remain in the state legislatures are less ambitious (or power-hungry) than their colleagues who've moved onto the national scene.
You know how much things have changed in our political system in over 200 years. One thing hasn't changed, though. Those state legislators then who sent Clay or Webster to Washington were sending on their most ambitious man to tackle the big questions. They weren't trying to resolve all questions back in the state legislatures.
The reasons for including states in the government they created haven’t changed since 1787.
What your saying is each state is MORE than capable of being sovereign in light of the nonexistent military threat. Nice to see you agreeing with me.
Be careful what you wish for: assuming that you actually could get the states to take over functions that the federal government does now you might be surprised at how much energy and ferocity that the states will bring to fulfilling those functions.
In other words, unchain the states and the ones that respond to your challenge may be the new jailers you'll complain about.
It's also funny that you took Virginia as your original example.
Good luck convincing your fellow citizens to put their largest employer out of business.
You’ll never get that tongue off of the federal boot. I guess shoe leather is tasty to you. Sorry SOB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.