Do we need to hold another Constitutional Convention?

[Snaploud]

By the way, to add a bit of intelligent debate to this thread, for those advocating proportionate representation in the Senate. It is actually, perhaps, the one thing that is not amendable. The last line of Article V says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." The intent was literally to prevent constitutional amendments that would deprive states of equal voting power that would allow the large states to dominate at the expense of the small ones.

That really doesn't make any sense. We have plenty of precedent for constitutional amendments going against the language of the original document. An amendment over-rides the original text. That's what makes it an amendment.

The constitution specifically provides for those amendments. The document can be changed because it says the document can be changed. The thing with the Senate is the document specifically says no amendment can alter this provision of the constitution. There's one other part that wasn't amendable (banning the slave trade before 1808), but that's obviously not relevant anymore. It would be an interesting case if people tried to alter it. Honestly, it would be easier just to dissolve the Senate itself or give the House some kind of override (like the House of Commons has over the Lords). Both of those would most likely be legal changes.

Ah, I see now. The provision is part of the article dealing with amendments. I don't know if I ever knew that... Oh, well. You learn something new every day.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, it's not something people ever notice. Makes sense in context of the Constitutional Convention, however. It was also a compromise (some small state representative wanted to knix the idea of ever having amendments).

 

[Shaw]

...

Wow... it sure sounds like you want to dissolve the United States. No national currency, people required to carry passports to move from state to state and apply for citizenship in those other states if they want to move to them. Having to exchange currency when crossing from one state to another. How is that still a country?

What is your problem with citizenship? And for that matter, the United States?

I was born in California... so was my father and my aunt. I now live in Minnesota, my father lives in Colorado and my aunt in North Carolina. Would I be forced from my home because I wasn't born here? Would I require a passport to visit my relatives?

Why would any state need a special version of citizenship?

Is your goal to divide the population? Or to restrict the movements of our people? Is there any good reason for this?

Why do states need extra sovereignty?

The United States today is a much smaller country than when it was originally formed. Back then travel and communication among the original thirteen states meant that each of them were effectively isolated... but today (with the exception of Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories) everything is within hours away.

You talk about us being an Empire... but we are not. Heck, being a power (or super power) is a relatively recent development in our history, and who knows if it'll last. More importantly, why should it matter?

England was a super power (and rightfully called an Empire), but they aren't today. And the people there don't seem to be all that bad off after losing that status.

4.Adopt 15th, Everyone deserves right to vote. Allow for property requirements only. This eliminates non tax payers from voting with agenda's

-and-​

Don't worry, most of us own property. If you own a car, you own property.

And if not, you would disenfranchise all others?

All of this seems designed to further limit the rights of those you think less of. What do you have against others in this country? How would you feel if someone started excluding you from things like voting?

Why divide our country? It runs contrary to one of our founding principles... United we stand, divided we fall.



As for citizenship issues... I personally think that anyone who wants to be a US citizen should be given immediate citizenship. After all, they already possess the single most important qualification... the desire to be a part of this country.

Run from what we are if you like, but this is how I see this country...

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883​

We are a great country because we are inclusive, not exclusive.

 

[Nowhere Man]

...

Wow... it sure sounds like you want to dissolve the United States. No national currency, people required to carry passports to move from state to state and apply for citizenship in those other states if they want to move to them. Having to exchange currency when crossing from one state to another. How is that still a country?

What is your problem with citizenship? And for that matter, the United States?

I was born in California... so was my father and my aunt. I now live in Minnesota, my father lives in Colorado and my aunt in North Carolina. Would I be forced from my home because I wasn't born here? Would I require a passport to visit my relatives?

Why would any state need a special version of citizenship?

Is your goal to divide the population? Or to restrict the movements of our people? Is there any good reason for this?

Why do states need extra sovereignty?

The United States today is a much smaller country than when it was originally formed. Back then travel and communication among the original thirteen states meant that each of them were effectively isolated... but today (with the exception of Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories) everything is within hours away.

You talk about us being an Empire... but we are not. Heck, being a power (or super power) is a relatively recent development in our history, and who knows if it'll last. More importantly, why should it matter?

England was a super power (and rightfully called an Empire), but they aren't today. And the people there don't seem to be all that bad off after losing that status.

4.Adopt 15th, Everyone deserves right to vote. Allow for property requirements only. This eliminates non tax payers from voting with agenda's

-and-​

Don't worry, most of us own property. If you own a car, you own property.

And if not, you would disenfranchise all others?

All of this seems designed to further limit the rights of those you think less of. What do you have against others in this country? How would you feel if someone started excluding you from things like voting?

Why divide our country? It runs contrary to one of our founding principles... United we stand, divided we fall.



As for citizenship issues... I personally think that anyone who wants to be a US citizen should be given immediate citizenship. After all, they already possess the single most important qualification... the desire to be a part of this country.

Run from what we are if you like, but this is how I see this country...

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883
​

We are a great country because we are inclusive, not exclusive.

I don't want to disolve the United States, I want decentralize it. I love this countr, I don't hate it. What I do hate is when someone has genuine concerns about where this country is going and questions some of the things we've done, they get accused of hating this country.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

See, decentralization didn't work before, under the Articles of Confederation. The national government had no power to do anything and because of that, it was going broke. We do need a strong central government.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Also, in spite of much greater prominence of the central government, the United States is still largely state-centric. State laws and customs vary widely and the majority of what you'll do in your life is affected by these things, not federal laws. I do think that some federal police powers should be cut down (with the exception of crimes against federal employees, crimes against the state, or literally interfering with commerce enforcing powers, I don't see the need for certain crimes to be national crimes). But even these aren't the majority of laws.

 

[Shaw]

I don't want to disolve the United States, I want decentralize it. I love this countr, I don't hate it. What I do hate is when someone has genuine concerns about where this country is going and questions some of the things we've done, they get accused of hating this country.

That is one way of avoiding answering the questions.

I never said you hate, but I did ask a lot of questions you didn't even attempt to answer.

Lets ask them again...

What is your problem with citizenship?
Why would any state need a special version of citizenship?
Is your goal to divide the population? Or to restrict the movements of our people?
Why do states need extra sovereignty?
Why disenfranchise people from their rights to vote?
How would you feel if someone started excluding you from things like voting?
And the big one... Why divide our country?​

And why would you think any of that was a good idea?

You brought up that you were worried about our Republic collapsing... yet the closest we came was when things were the way they were before the Civil War. Our country didn't make it 100 years before that happen, but we've gone far more than 100 years since.

So why long for something that didn't work? Unless, of course, you are looking for a way to stage another civil war. After all, decentralize the government and watch the union dissolve.

But lets put it simply... why should my rights, my citizenship or my currency vary from state to state?

And again... why would you think any of these are good ideas?

Ok I think that's it, let me know what you think.

I liked some of your ideas, some that I don't think will work have been nicely addressed by others... and some are so far off the wall that I think they need clarification.

Please avoid misrepresenting what I say (like the hate thing you tried in your last post), and attempt to honestly address the questions I have asked.

You wanted to know what I thought, I need you to clarify how some of these ideas that have the potential to be exceptionally harmful could possibly be considered good ideas. I assume you must be seeing something I'm not, so please clarify.

 

[T'Girl]

The CIA. was created during WW2,

The CIA was created on July 26, 1947.

The CIA. is conducting our wars for us and using our soldiers to do so

The DOD conducts our wars for us. The CIA isn't in any way way independently engaging in wars, it is under congressional oversight, and officially the CIA engages in it's activities at the request of the President of the United States.

They should be dismantled.

Even if you strip out the National Clandestine Service directorate from the CIA (I'm guessing that the part you dislike), you would likely have to simply add that directorates current duties and activities to one of the other government agencies under the office of the Director of National Intelligence. Probably using the same people.

I'm tired of total war.

No nation has engaged in total war in over sixty-five years.

They conduct a lot, and I mean a lot of illegal actions.

Care to name a few?

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

We could make a new constitution that's really awful and then when everybody complains bring back the old one and call it "constitution classic."

 

[Unicron]

The 14th created a National citizenship, give the Citizenship back to the States as it was before.

You keep saying this, but that's not what the amendment actually says or how it's intended to function. We're all citizens of the same nation, so long as we're either born here or have gone through citizenship, and the 14th ensures that no individual state can deny us those basic rights of citizenship on purely arbitrary grounds like race, religion, etc. The right to citizenship has always been there, it just wasn't always protected properly or extended to everyone it was due.

And the federal government doesn't issue a lot of the legal forms like drivers licenses and so forth that citizens might require for their work. The states do that. Every time I vote in a local or national election, I'm doing so partially as a representative of my state as well as my nation.

Senators are elected every 6 years, but in that time they have to argue back and forth with pundits and what not about every little thing they do. This is esentially running for office, because voters are constantly paying attention to what these guys are saying. You could argue that for 4 years they actually do work, but political campaigns start imeadiately after electioin day, everything they do is for the next election. The last two years of their term is devoted to the election. One year for primary and one for the actual election. Same thing for President, yet the President only works for 2 years and runs for two years. Christ, the House doesn't stand a chance.

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that elected officials shouldn't dedicate as much of their last few years to "election thinking" or that having to deal with pundits and political issues throughout their terms qualifies as "running for office"? I'd agree that there's too much partisanship and election thinking going around nowadays, but I don't think all of them are that self-centered.

Each state would print their own money and various banks could too. It was like that before the Civil War, but we also were on the gold standard too. Each States' money would be valid and since the price of gold would remain the same world wide, there's no need for an exchange rate. It just give the States their soveriegnty back.

How would having separate state currency for every single state be better or more efficient than having a single currency backed by the central government's gold reserve? The main reason such a system existed prior to the Civil War was because nobody was clear on where the line between state powers (guaranteed for non-Federal powers by the 10th amendment) and federal powers should be. There are some powers that each side is better equipped to handle than the other, and as Alidar said the system is still very state-managed even though the central government has gotten larger, and perhaps larger than it should be.

I don't think the 2nd amenment is clear otherwise we would have to argue it all the frackin time. Here's an argument. I have the right to bear arms, so I have a right to build a nuclear missle in my back yard. This is flawed, there has to be a cuttoff. You have a right to small arms such as mines and grenades. You have a right to shotguns, rifles, handguns, semi-automatics, but that's it.

I think the text itself is reasonably clear, but there are certainly those who make their own convenient interpretations like the one you've described here. I do agree that the best interpretation actually deals specifically with defending oneself.

As far as Declorations of war goes, The President should be allowed 6 months initial military action. After that a decloration of war should be made. For every year that the war goes on the President should have to go to Congress and re-Declare war. This forces Congress each time to have to think about what they are doing and could prevent wars that have no end. It also forced the President to justify the continuation of the war. We have been at a constant state of war for almost a century, that is not right. Ask yourself why that is?

Why should the President have to issue a re-declaration to maintain a valid war, especially if he's going to get the first six months of military action free? Certainly there needs to be some measure of oversight, but when was the last time we fought an "endless" war? What "constant state of war for almost a century" are you referring to? The Constitution makes it clear that while Congress has the authority to declare war, the President is the commander of armed forces. This seems to me like taking unnecessary power from the executive branch.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We could make a new constitution that's really awful and then when everybody complains bring back the old one and call it "constitution classic."

If it changes too much, though, you might have to call it a REFIT Constitution.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I don't want to disolve the United States, I want decentralize it. I love this countr, I don't hate it. What I do hate is when someone has genuine concerns about where this country is going and questions some of the things we've done, they get accused of hating this country.

That is one way of avoiding answering the questions.

I never said you hate, but I did ask a lot of questions you didn't even attempt to answer.

Lets ask them again...

What is your problem with citizenship?
Why would any state need a special version of citizenship?
Is your goal to divide the population? Or to restrict the movements of our people?
Why do states need extra sovereignty?
Why disenfranchise people from their rights to vote?
How would you feel if someone started excluding you from things like voting?
And the big one... Why divide our country?
​

And why would you think any of that was a good idea?

You brought up that you were worried about our Republic collapsing... yet the closest we came was when things were the way they were before the Civil War. Our country didn't make it 100 years before that happen, but we've gone far more than 100 years since.

So why long for something that didn't work? Unless, of course, you are looking for a way to stage another civil war. After all, decentralize the government and watch the union dissolve.

But lets put it simply... why should my rights, my citizenship or my currency vary from state to state?

And again... why would you think any of these are good ideas?

Ok I think that's it, let me know what you think.

I liked some of your ideas, some that I don't think will work have been nicely addressed by others... and some are so far off the wall that I think they need clarification.

Please avoid misrepresenting what I say (like the hate thing you tried in your last post), and attempt to honestly address the questions I have asked.

You wanted to know what I thought, I need you to clarify how some of these ideas that have the potential to be exceptionally harmful could possibly be considered good ideas. I assume you must be seeing something I'm not, so please clarify.

I'm going to revise my list and will get back to all of you on that end. I will adress your questions and clarify myself further. The point of this whole thing was to not just present my ideas, but see if anyone else out there had any ideas also. Let's assume that a new Convention has been called,(I know it is a pipe dream.) What can we come together or compromise on. Those were just my ideas, but only a few of you have suggested anything they would change. Maybe i'm in the minority in thinking that this country is Fracked.

Ok, let's adress your concerns. Citizenship, (as I said in previous posts) belonged to the states prior to Reconstruction. By giving letting the States decide Citizenship, you are only returning it to the rightfull owners. This what the Founders set up, not me. That does not mean you need a pasport to cross from one state to the next. We are United, I grant that.

In the past, if someone came to live here, they came here and had to pay taxes and live in that state for seven years or whatever and you had to be productive in that state. You had to prove your loyalty essentially. Then you were granted Ciizenship of that stae and therefore a Citizen of the US. It just returns power back to the states rather than all of the bullshit you have to go through to gain citizeship now. You have to take a retarted civics test and pay a shit load of money or you fake a mariage or whatever. It's stupid and look where it's gotten us. This also gives the states the right to secure the border. Now i'm not saying the Arizona law is right, it isn't, but put it like this. I live in Maryland, why do I have to worry what Arizona does. They are close to the border, let them decide how to handle it, not some Politician in Washington. I don't need Arizonians telling me what to do in Maryland either. That is why people like Jefferson believed in these things.

Interstate movement would not be restricted, we live in the United States. Now that's not to say if you want to go over seas you have a State passpoirt, no, you have a US. passport.

States need extra soveriegnty because that is what this country was intended to be. The Union did not exist, then the States, we are a compact(or suposed to be)of states which create the Union. I wouldn't call it extra soveriegnty, just restoring their soveriegnty.

Ok, property requirement, I'll scrap that. We have voter regeristration and ways to ID. people. I don't want to stop anyone from voting. In the past though property rights were a good way to stop voters who weren't really citizens of that state from voting. We don't need that anymore, so.

As far as decentralization goes, yes I would undo Reconstruction and return the country to the Republic it used to be. It was working up until 1860, the North wanted to indistrialize, the South didn't. The North began to use high tariffs on the South, the didn't like that and seceeded. The Confederacy was a continuation of the original Constitution. The North created a new country, which is what we live in now. Slavery is wrong and I would not reinstitute it. I have mention that already. I just believe a decentralized weak central government is the better way. The states used to share power, with the Federal government,now they do not. I just want to return to the shared government. The reason we went to war is because the North didn't want to go through the amendment process. They didn't want to gradually emancipate the slaves and they didn't want to pay for the slaves. We see how much it cost the country as a whole. It would have been a lot cheaper the other way. Lincoln was going for gradual emancipation before he was assasinated, he would have gone through with it.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The 14th created a National citizenship, give the Citizenship back to the States as it was before.

You keep saying this, but that's not what the amendment actually says or how it's intended to function. We're all citizens of the same nation, so long as we're either born here or have gone through citizenship, and the 14th ensures that no individual state can deny us those basic rights of citizenship on purely arbitrary grounds like race, religion, etc. The right to citizenship has always been there, it just wasn't always protected properly or extended to everyone it was due.

And the federal government doesn't issue a lot of the legal forms like drivers licenses and so forth that citizens might require for their work. The states do that. Every time I vote in a local or national election, I'm doing so partially as a representative of my state as well as my nation.

Senators are elected every 6 years, but in that time they have to argue back and forth with pundits and what not about every little thing they do. This is esentially running for office, because voters are constantly paying attention to what these guys are saying. You could argue that for 4 years they actually do work, but political campaigns start imeadiately after electioin day, everything they do is for the next election. The last two years of their term is devoted to the election. One year for primary and one for the actual election. Same thing for President, yet the President only works for 2 years and runs for two years. Christ, the House doesn't stand a chance.

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that elected officials shouldn't dedicate as much of their last few years to "election thinking" or that having to deal with pundits and political issues throughout their terms qualifies as "running for office"? I'd agree that there's too much partisanship and election thinking going around nowadays, but I don't think all of them are that self-centered.



How would having separate state currency for every single state be better or more efficient than having a single currency backed by the central government's gold reserve? The main reason such a system existed prior to the Civil War was because nobody was clear on where the line between state powers (guaranteed for non-Federal powers by the 10th amendment) and federal powers should be. There are some powers that each side is better equipped to handle than the other, and as Alidar said the system is still very state-managed even though the central government has gotten larger, and perhaps larger than it should be.

I don't think the 2nd amenment is clear otherwise we would have to argue it all the frackin time. Here's an argument. I have the right to bear arms, so I have a right to build a nuclear missle in my back yard. This is flawed, there has to be a cuttoff. You have a right to small arms such as mines and grenades. You have a right to shotguns, rifles, handguns, semi-automatics, but that's it.

I think the text itself is reasonably clear, but there are certainly those who make their own convenient interpretations like the one you've described here. I do agree that the best interpretation actually deals specifically with defending oneself.

As far as Declorations of war goes, The President should be allowed 6 months initial military action. After that a decloration of war should be made. For every year that the war goes on the President should have to go to Congress and re-Declare war. This forces Congress each time to have to think about what they are doing and could prevent wars that have no end. It also forced the President to justify the continuation of the war. We have been at a constant state of war for almost a century, that is not right. Ask yourself why that is?

Why should the President have to issue a re-declaration to maintain a valid war, especially if he's going to get the first six months of military action free? Certainly there needs to be some measure of oversight, but when was the last time we fought an "endless" war? What "constant state of war for almost a century" are you referring to? The Constitution makes it clear that while Congress has the authority to declare war, the President is the commander of armed forces. This seems to me like taking unnecessary power from the executive branch.

Have we not been at war since WW2 arguably WW1? Let's see , WW2, Korea, Vietnam, inbetween that, CIA. secret wars by Regan in Central-America and Afghanistan, Gulf War, Bosnia and various places in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan(again) Iraq, and then what Iran, North Korea? If that's not a constant state of war, the what do you call it. Afghanistan has no end in sight and niether does Iraq. Don't give me that bull about combat troops, there are still trops there fighting. These war exist only so there will be a war to exist. It is to fuel the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned about. Why do you think he warned about it? He didn't just pull it out of his ass, he saw it coming. He had inside info. from bieng inside the Whitehouse. When is it going to stop?

 

[Shaw]

Ok, let's adress your concerns. Citizenship, (as I said in previous posts) belonged to the states prior to Reconstruction. By giving letting the States decide Citizenship, you are only returning it to the rightfull owners. This what the Founders set up, not me. That does not mean you need a pasport to cross from one state to the next. We are United, I grant that.

Well, at one point all this belonged to the Native Americans and citizenship in the colonies was under british control... why not go back to those rightful owners?

There is no good reason to have 55 versions of citizenship for one country... unless you are attempting to deny something from someone.

In the past, if someone came to live here, they came here and had to pay taxes and live in that state for seven years or whatever and you had to be productive in that state. You had to prove your loyalty essentially. Then you were granted Ciizenship of that stae and therefore a Citizen of the US.

So I'd have to have proven I was productive in Minnesota for seven years before I could be considered a citizen of Minnesota? And if I failed that arbitrary test... what, I'd be deported back to California?

What if you lost your citizenship in California after not being a resident for three years... would that mean I lose my US citizenship altogether?

It just returns power back to the states rather than all of the bullshit you have to go through to gain citizeship now. You have to take a retarted civics test and pay a shit load of money or you fake a mariage or whatever. It's stupid and look where it's gotten us.

Did you have to go through this bullshit to become a citizen? Why (if you are already a citizen) do you care to make it harder for others? Who (exactly) are you attempting to gear these conditions against... and why?

And what has it gotten us? What is so bad that you feel this need to change things? Who would you have kept from having citizenship that currently has it?

It sure sounds like you have someone (or a group) in mind that you would like to disenfranchise.

As I said before, this is an inclusive country... not exclusive.

This also gives the states the right to secure the border. Now i'm not saying the Arizona law is right, it isn't, but put it like this. I live in Maryland, why do I have to worry what Arizona does. They are close to the border, let them decide how to handle it, not some Politician in Washington.

The politicians in Washington came from places like Arizona and Maryland... they represent us, all of us. Our borders are a national resource, not a state resource. They are also a national concern, not a state concern.

So if Mexico decides to invade Arizona, should the rest of the US sit back and enjoy the show? Should people like you in Maryland sit back and say it isn't my problem?

I don't need Arizonians telling me what to do in Maryland either. That is why people like Jefferson believed in these things.

No, it isn't.

Jefferson lived in a 5 mile an hour world. States needed sovereignty because they were effectively isolated. Moving from state to state took a long time, communication between states took a long time... communication with a centralized federal government took a long time.

Consider this thread... how long would it have taken in Jefferson's day for everyone who has participated in it to have communicated their thoughts/replies on this matter from where they respectively live?

This is a very different world.

In the past though property rights were a good way to stop voters who weren't really citizens of that state from voting. We don't need that anymore, so.

Again, you seem really concerned with what other people are doing... why? Where is this coming from? Who are you trying to stop from voting?

There are already rules for who qualifies to vote... why do you have this strong impulse to ratchet those requirements up even higher?

In the past this was done to disenfranchise elements of the population from their rights to votes... what is your motivation?

As far as decentralization goes, yes I would undo Reconstruction and return the country to the Republic it used to be. It was working up until 1860, the North wanted to indistrialize, the South didn't. The North began to use high tariffs on the South, the didn't like that and seceeded.

So in your mind the Civil War was mainly over tariffs?

I believe the first state to secede was South Carolina, and they didn't talk about tariffs in their declaration. In fact, reading the first paragraph, one gets the distinct idea that it was slavery that was the principle cause (in their minds)...

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.​

As I said before... these are some really bad ideas, and I have to question what would motivate someone to propose them. Because it seems like you don't like the freedoms and liberties we have and would like to dial them back for some people that you seem to think are not worthy of them.

Unless you can show me otherwise, that is what it looks like from where I sit. But the revisionist version of the secession of the South at least explains why you long for the worst elements of our countries history. After all, there is nothing today as bad as the South in 1860.

Maybe i'm in the minority in thinking that this country is Fracked.

If you long for the South of 1860, I sure hope you are the smallest minority possible.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Ok, let's adress your concerns. Citizenship, (as I said in previous posts) belonged to the states prior to Reconstruction. By giving letting the States decide Citizenship, you are only returning it to the rightfull owners. This what the Founders set up, not me. That does not mean you need a pasport to cross from one state to the next. We are United, I grant that.

Well, at one point all this belonged to the Native Americans and citizenship in the colonies was under british control... why not go back to those rightful owners?

There is no good reason to have 55 versions of citizenship for one country... unless you are attempting to deny something from someone.

In the past, if someone came to live here, they came here and had to pay taxes and live in that state for seven years or whatever and you had to be productive in that state. You had to prove your loyalty essentially. Then you were granted Ciizenship of that stae and therefore a Citizen of the US.

So I'd have to have proven I was productive in Minnesota for seven years before I could be considered a citizen of Minnesota? And if I failed that arbitrary test... what, I'd be deported back to California?

What if you lost your citizenship in California after not being a resident for three years... would that mean I lose my US citizenship altogether?

Did you have to go through this bullshit to become a citizen? Why (if you are already a citizen) do you care to make it harder for others? Who (exactly) are you attempting to gear these conditions against... and why?

And what has it gotten us? What is so bad that you feel this need to change things? Who would you have kept from having citizenship that currently has it?

It sure sounds like you have someone (or a group) in mind that you would like to disenfranchise.

As I said before, this is an inclusive country... not exclusive.

The politicians in Washington came from places like Arizona and Maryland... they represent us, all of us. Our borders are a national resource, not a state resource. They are also a national concern, not a state concern.

So if Mexico decides to invade Arizona, should the rest of the US sit back and enjoy the show? Should people like you in Maryland sit back and say it isn't my problem?

No, it isn't.

Jefferson lived in a 5 mile an hour world. States needed sovereignty because they were effectively isolated. Moving from state to state took a long time, communication between states took a long time... communication with a centralized federal government took a long time.

Consider this thread... how long would it have taken in Jefferson's day for everyone who has participated in it to have communicated their thoughts/replies on this matter from where they respectively live?

This is a very different world.

Again, you seem really concerned with what other people are doing... why? Where is this coming from? Who are you trying to stop from voting?

There are already rules for who qualifies to vote... why do you have this strong impulse to ratchet those requirements up even higher?

In the past this was done to disenfranchise elements of the population from their rights to votes... what is your motivation?

As far as decentralization goes, yes I would undo Reconstruction and return the country to the Republic it used to be. It was working up until 1860, the North wanted to indistrialize, the South didn't. The North began to use high tariffs on the South, the didn't like that and seceeded.

So in your mind the Civil War was mainly over tariffs?

I believe the first state to secede was South Carolina, and they didn't talk about tariffs in their declaration. In fact, reading the first paragraph, one gets the distinct idea that it was slavery that was the principle cause (in their minds)...

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
​

As I said before... these are some really bad ideas, and I have to question what would motivate someone to propose them. Because it seems like you don't like the freedoms and liberties we have and would like to dial them back for some people that you seem to think are not worthy of them.

Unless you can show me otherwise, that is what it looks like from where I sit. But the revisionist version of the secession of the South at least explains why you long for the worst elements of our countries history. After all, there is nothing today as bad as the South in 1860.

Maybe i'm in the minority in thinking that this country is Fracked.

If you long for the South of 1860, I sure hope you are the smallest minority possible.

You don't understand history at all. Nobody who is born in the US. would lose thier citizenship. If you gain citizenship in one state, you gain citizenship in the whole United States nobody can take that away. That's not the way it works. I'm talking about people entering the country, Imigration. You come from another country into a port. You then move to California or Vermont or Indiana or whatever. That state requires you to pay taxes,own property, and live in that state for 7 years. You do that and prove that you did that. Just like when you go to get a license you prove that you live there with bills or whatever. You get citizenship as a US. citizen. You can go to another state and live, you do not have to go through the process agian, just once. That is it. Nobody is getting shitted on. The reason to have it that way is because that is the way it was set up by the Founders. Like I said, states and Federal government shared power.

If we rolled everything back to 1860 that would not be good either. Blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote. There are constitutional amendments that protect peoples rights. I said I would want that. You must not have read that.

I am not using revisionist history, I am using real history. The South did not like the high tariff, they did not like the Federal government telling them what to do. Slavery was legal, the North did not recognize that from a legal stand point. The slaves were considered property by the Constitution. The 10th amendment provides that property cannot be taken away without compensation. From a legal stand point the South was right. From a moral stand point of course they were wrong, but we live in a land of laws.

The Northern businessmen wanted to expand the rail roads and other internal improvements. They imposed high tariffs on the South to pay for it. The South was getting taxed, yet did not recieve any benifit from it. Southerners wanted to move West and take thier slaves with them. The Northern businessmen did not want that. There in lies the argument. Whether slavery should be allowed into the teritories. The North didn't want to allow it. South Carolina seceeded over the high tariff. Fort Sumpter was attacked because the Northern Businessmen pushed Lincoln to do it because they needed the port to collect the taxes. After the attack the rest of the Southern states seceeded. They had the legal right to do so, Lincoln argued agianst that. They seceeded on the basis of states' rights, not slavery. Lincoln was not fighting the war over slavery, he was fighting to preserve the Union. It was only when the North was losing, and pressure from the Radicals in his Party pressured him to do something about slavery. He then isssued the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not free one slave. It was only to shut the radicals up. He used it as a political ploy to make the war about something that sounded more noble so that the British would not help the South. The war then became a crusade for freedom. It was never intended to be that way.

As I said before, Lincoln was not concerned about the slaves, he had a plan for gradual emancipation, which is what he should have done from the get go. This country is the only country in the 19th century that had to go to war over slavery. As far as the conditions in the South go. 80% of the Southern population didn't even own slaves, so what were they fighting for? They were fighting for the right of self government. The North had benifitted from slavery too and were more racist than Southerners. Most slave owners did not treat their slaves in such harsh ways as depicted on tv.

The South in 1860 was not perfect, but it wasen't the evil South that everyone has painted them. Conditions in the North were bad for blacks too, they were wage slaves. They worked in factories and lived under shitty conditions and worked for little pay. They couldn't get from under the thumb of Northern businessmen. Tell me which one is worse?

Lincoln was a Dictator during the war, he shut down 300 newspapers, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, he had the remaining Democrats in Maryland and imprisoned them just for attempting to seceed. He forced Maryland to not seceed through marshal law. He created West Virginia. You need to study history more, I am a History major and have rsearched this stuff exstinsively. This is real history, not revisionist history.

I wouldn't keep anyone wo already has citizenship from having it. I'm talking about imigration into the country.As I stated before, I believe in civil rights, I believe in everyones right to vote. I believe in everyones right to marry(if they want to torture themselves) I believe in everyones right to work and earn a livin wage. I believe all of this should be protected under the law. I believe that people should be allowed to come here and make a wonderfull life for themselves, but there has to be a fracking coherant imigration policy. The one we have clearly dosen't work, so I'm proposing a change that would work. It lowers illegal imigration and lowers the chances of people who wish us harm of bieng here.

I won't repeat myself agian, this country is not what the Founders intended. My ideas are the best way to return us to that Republic, but still retain all of the rights we have now. The fact that this country is not the country that was intended is all the reason I need. I want to return this country to the original intent. Retain the freedoms we have, but decentralize the government. Let the States share the power with the Federal government.

 

[Squiggy]

You have to take a retarted civics test...

Irony?

The South in 1860 was not perfect, but it wasen't the evil South that everyone has painted them. Conditions in the North were bad for blacks too, they were wage slaves. They worked in factories and lived under shitty conditions and worked for little pay. They couldn't get from under the thumb of Northern businessmen. Tell me which one is worse?

Um. The actual slave?

I hope you're going to ask for your money back regarding your degree.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I won't repeat myself agian, this country is not what the Founders intended. My ideas are the best way to return us to that Republic, but still retain all of the rights we have now. The fact that this country is not the country that was intended is all the reason I need. I want to return this country to the original intent. Retain the freedoms we have, but decentralize the government. Let the States share the power with the Federal government.

I am informed again and again that "original intent" arguments are bullshit.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I won't repeat myself agian, this country is not what the Founders intended. My ideas are the best way to return us to that Republic, but still retain all of the rights we have now. The fact that this country is not the country that was intended is all the reason I need. I want to return this country to the original intent. Retain the freedoms we have, but decentralize the government. Let the States share the power with the Federal government.

I am informed again and again that "original intent" arguments are bullshit.

Yeah, it's a load of BS. The Founders went out of their way to hide their intent. They wanted the Constitution to stand on its own and evolve to the needs of future generations. Some people think the Founders would be aghast at how we've warped what they created.

I think they'd be annoyed to see people still trying to divine their intentions almost 250 years later and completely missing the point.

 

[Squiggy]

It'd be just as valid as the founders limiting their thinking to 1540.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

They were also a diverse group of people who never agreed on anything. In fact, they realized they never agreed on anything. That's why they picked a compromise document that could be changed with time and was flexible enough to allow them all to be right depending on who the voters supported.