Comment: Two quick observations reading my post

(See in situ)


Two quick observations reading my post

First: the doctrine of Reconstitution does essentially imply an ability of the states to protest the result of an election with non-participation. In other words, it makes the federal system more voluntary than it has been since 1787. However, the process is difficult, dangerous, and expensive. Only severe abuses of power through institutional failure of the constitution would lead to states pursuing this option. There also remains the very big difference between this approach and secession or the Articles of Confederation: unity. The final outcome of the process is a united voice of the states to other nations. So long as there is a constituted USA, its treaties will be law in every state. So long as there is a constituted USA, which the states find to be just, there will be one law of commerce.

Second: Stability. Though this process contains a 'scary' period where the federal power may ruthlessly crush the reform attempt, it is highly likely that a good majority of states undergoing a process that is fundamentally 'reform' and not 'secession' could convince the powers that be to save face and go along with the very public and hard to discredit reform process. This means that all the naval vessels and nuclear missiles in the federal arsenal can maintain a continuity of alertness throughout the transition. Reconstitution doesn't seek to disband the current federal government except in a peaceful transition of power to the new government. In the transition period, the states don't recognize that government's domestic powers.