States should rise up.

Savage I do like that idea by comparison. I have one beef though. What stops the states from becoming the tyrants in place of the fed?

Who watches the watchmen?

Nothing. They begin to fight with one another and we weaken as a country.

If and when they violate the Bill of rights, the Feds send in the marshals?

The Feds wouldn't be sovereign over everything, but they'd still be there as a check/balance.

edited 18th Dec '11 2:27:53 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Only read the OP, so if I'm repeating anything I apologize, but I think if people actually bothered to organize, a Convention could be held. Wouldn't really be Blue vs. Red in that regard either because you don't have to have a singular agenda to get the convention, you just have to agree to have one and the both "colors" have a laundry list of grievances, not all having to do with ideological issues, so its not like one side would hold it up based on party or position inland/coast.

That said, actually organizing and getting their state governments to comply are easier said than done since many (most?) states are too financially dependant on the Federal Government to go against it so blatantly. That and the state leaderships are also politically dependent on the national parties for support....

edited 18th Dec '11 2:23:47 PM by FFShinra

I am not too worried about the feds if we already cutting their powers. If we give more power to the states they can just as easily abuse it as the fed.

edited 18th Dec '11 2:35:02 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

@ Savage: Marshals? Military, more like, if they violate it enough...

Keep Rolling On

Well, that's certainly a lot of posts.

Well, my intention was "Why don't the states' rights advocates just use the option plainly given in Article V", but I think maybe I titled it and introduced it in a way that's state-centered. I intended it to be states vs federal, rather than states vs people. There is an important difference between the two, because who takes which side depends on the case.

During the early era, with the debate over ratifying the new Constitution, the Federalists were on one side (strong federal government) and the states, standing up for their people, on the other (state freedom). It's stability against liberty. In the Civil War era, however, it's different. The federal government and the people were on the same side (with the federal authority stepping in to protect civil rights), and the states on the other.

But well, as you mentioned later, sometimes the federal government stood for the people. Desegregation, equal proportioned legislative districts, and incorporation of the Bill of Rights were done because the nation applied its authority on its constituents. So while a localized government has its benefits, so does having a federal government with it.

To be accurate, the Congress did pass repeal of prohibition. It picked state ratification conventions instead of state legislatures; it's not quite the same as a constitutional convention.

But you do bring up interesting points in that post on how federal government can regulate commerce.

@Lost Anarchist:

When I said "states should rise up" I'm not saying it has to be a violent revolution or anything. It's plainly in the Constitution that the states can seize power and make amendments at any time if they would just unite for once. It doesn't require having better federal officials, because you don't need their consent. It's not that it needs fancy steps; it's really just inaction getting in the way.

@Octo:

What you're suggesting is that US should no longer be United States, but be a unitary state. It's fine, but just remember that without a Senate and some sense of state identity, it's no longer a federal republic, and there's no reason for any territory to become a state. And personally, I don't think a unitary state will work that well with a nation with this much population, land size, and international power.

I would question that. IMO, those points base themselves on the assumption of federal-state relationship as they currently stand. But Article V isn't bound by such assumption.

• Keep in mind, states acting via constitutional convention doesn't mean the Congress is obsolete. The Congress can still pass amendments and have a federal role. And remember, all of the officials are statespersons sent from some states.
• States are only financially dependent on the federal government they created. If the states mobilize, they can shape the federal government too, and its financial flow. They can also change the system so that the states have more control over commerce if they wanted (whether that's a good idea is another story).

I'm not necessarily saying we should dismantle federal power. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to be this way.

edited 18th Dec '11 2:56:50 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

No, it's not. That's why I've been repeating every second post that federalism is defined by the competencies the state have, by their internal autonomy, and not by participation of the states on the federal level! What I propose is to have a sort of federalism where states have extensive internal rights, but are not represented at all as states on the federal level.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

The need of infrastructure does not increase proportionally to population.

Michigan running itself?

Oh hell no.

No thaaaank you.

That can be done on a unitary system too. The definition of a federated state is that it has its own identity. You cannot have that if it cannot be represented as-is. That's why each state is guaranteed one House representative, no matter how small its population, and its representative is elected by people of that state.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Not really. That would be in name only centralism then. That's why people say Spain has become a de facto federation, due to the devolution of powers to all provinces (if in different amounts), even though it is nowhere defined as federation anywhere in its constitution or so. If the states have enough rights, it's by definition a federal system.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

And one fundamental right is representation. Without it, the federal government, controlled by the majority, will simply pass amendments against the states.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Okay,let me rephrase that: If the states (or in general, the sub-national entities) have enough competencies, authority over enough policy fields, then it's by definition a federal system. You might be right or not that it could be an instable federal system, but it would be a federal system, regardless of representation of the states on the federal level.

Also, Spain and Italy where the opposite development has taken place for decades pretty much prove your point wrong, or at least that it has to end up that way.

edited 19th Dec '11 8:26:33 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

So what rights would these states have? A unitary government can simply put some things in the constitution that it will not infringe upon certain local control.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Indeed. And that makes it de facto a federal system then.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Well we're not going to get rid of the official federal system in the US, since that's integral to the nation's structure. A state is allowed to be small or big and still have its sense of identity.

Now using Trivialis handle.

{Unrelated soapbox video link deleted. —Madrugada}

edited 26th Dec '11 9:17:09 PM by Madrugada

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Now using Trivialis handle.