Inspired by Alex Jones: ReconstitutionSubmitted by Tman2000 on Mon, 11/19/2012 - 21:32
What if there was a halfway step between a Constitutional Convention and Secession?
Alex Jones called it Reconstitution.
Here's how I think it would work: a state secedes not from the union, but from the current federal government . It does not declare itself hostile to that government or demand its dissolution, only refuses to recognize the authority of Washington over the state and its people (excepting fair use of federal property). It remains in this position (preventing FBI, ATF, NSA, IRS, etc. from legally operating there) until such time as a constitutional convention appointed by the states can ratify a new constitution, which must then be approved by the people. It may accept delegates from other states, or recognize officers of a states-appointed continental congress for dealing with interstate disputes during this transition, but it will treat the federal government as an untrustworthy foreign power. When there is no possibility of compromise, the possibility of multiple confederacies remains a justified outcome.
A constitutional convention is necessary when elections themselves fail to meaningfully guarantee liberty because of institutional resistance by government in fulfilling its proper role. Yet, a constitutional convention itself requires elections and is largely managed by the institution it seeks to reform.
More importantly - assuming that the institution of central government has become corrupt enough to require substantial institutional reform, would it not stand to reason that it would resist any such efforts at reform? In a society where the power of the federal government relative to the people was little, elections and conventions could reform the federal center. Once the relationship is inverted, reform can only come from within the corrupt establishment itself.
The federal government, defined loosely but correctly as the Hamiltonian status quo (more or less since Lincoln, but including more recent changes), includes not less than the following influences over the entirety of American society:
*The entire financial system via the money supply, regulation, and the century-long establishment of an opaque, privately oriented, and immensely powerful Federal Reserve central banking system.
*The majority of the education system from pre-school to advanced research via DoE money, programs, grant money, and so forth.
*Police presence via ATF, FBI, DEA, and on and on.
*Persistent totalitarian surveillance via NSA et al.
*The loyalty of entire populations of all demographics in every state via subsidies, entitlements and handouts.
*An endless multitude of federal contracts for the national defense industry and more in every last congressional district.
and on and on
With such influence, no minority, no matter how significant, could ever hope to achieve meaningful reform to the Hamiltonian status quo. No majority, silent or vocal, would be able to form any long-term coalition to advocate for reform. We are divided and conquered on every front by the federal machine.
Elections or constitutional conventions will not lead to meaningful reform.
What about the chances of a minority, free of the influence of state-academia, police presence, or dependency uniting, coalescing, and seceding as a free and sovereign people? Again, such an act would be considered outright rebellion. It might not even be desired.
So is there an alternative middle ground? YES! RECONSTITUTION!
The idea is that the best you could hope for is a small minority, forming a presence in a state or two, acting on their desire for meaningful reform of the power relationship between the federal government, and the states and people respectively.
Take this kernel, but don't secede. We want union, we believe in a political alliance between the states for a common defense, and open commerce, and more or less what we understand to be in the Constitution. The problem is a federal government that has grown beyond the bounds of the Constitution and used its power to prevent anyone from being able to reform it meaningfully.
So take a state: New Hampshire and Texas let's say. They say the following: "Based on the 10th amendment, as well as the foundational sovereignty of the states and their people, believing that the federal government is unconstitutional and abusive of power, and that it employs its power and influence to thwart the possibility of reform, we hereby call for a Reconstitution of federal government."
HERE'S THE TRICK: THE STATES SECEDE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT THE UNION. THEY REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THEIR STATE BORDERS - EXCEPTING FAIR USE OF FEDERAL PROPERTY - UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A NATIONAL, UNION WIDE, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS HELD - SUCH A CONVENTION SHALL BE COMPRISED ONLY OF REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTED BY THE STATES BY A FAIR AND FREE PROCESS, AND ANY NEW CONSTITUTION MUST BE APPROVED BY 2/3 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN EACH AND EVERY STATE - IF NO COMPROMISE CAN BE REACHED FOR ALL THE STATES, THEN THE UNION WILL DISSOLVE INTO SMALLER CONFEDERACIES. THE STATES MAY ALSO REESTABLISH THE EXACT SAME CONSTITUTION IF THEY SEE FIT, BUT MAY INCLUDE ARTICLES OF ESTABLISHMENT WHICH DISBAND CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE PRESENT FEDERAL POWER. ONCE COMPLETE, THE NEW GOVERNMENT, DULY ELECTED AND APPOINTED, SHALL RESUME OWNERSHIP OF ALL FEDERAL PROPERTY, AND SHALL RIGHTFULLY HOLD SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER ALL FORMER FEDERAL OFFICES. THE STATES AS A WHOLE HAVE THE POWER TO INDEPENDENTLY SUPERSEDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EVEN IF ONE STATE ALONE MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.
In other words, Nullification, then Constitutional Convention. But wrapped up into one concept.
The utility of this approach, and the need for a unified concept, lie in the fact that any small amount of power that can be reacquired by the states and people from the federal government may start a cascade and shift of power overall.
At a minimum, the publicity and social effect of one state entering a position of Reconstitution might lead to a few more. Especially if the process seems to be viable.
Then, with half the country 'abstaining' in 'civil disobedience' of federal power, the federal empire may not have the funds or resources (I'd bet most federal officers would be in effective strike or conscientious objection) to continue on its present course.
This final collapse of federal power would convince some of the recalcitrant states to accede to Reconstitution. California would likely prefer to be in a less lucrative union with the other 49 states with a possibility of bailout or commerce, than face isolation and a closed border.
What say you Daily Paul? Good idea huh? Can we spread it? Someone email this to AJ? Or RP?