I used to think that myself (9th and 10th Amendments spell it out) until I delved into the wisdom and the warnings from the so-called “Anti-Federalists.” Until we change the corruption throughout the central government, nothing will change.
What if we could amend the Constitution to Mirror the Intent of the Articles of the Confederation, with no President (and all of those corrupt ABC agencies) or with the corrupt and biased Supreme court and let the states truly be sovereign again: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-part-iv-amending?r=76q58
I agree. I am more an anti-federalist and Brutus I is a document of breathtaking prescience. But we are a minority. So back to pragmatics: Do we cling to the vestiges of the Constitution or do we let the Empire Fall and start from scratch? Or do we try to bolt antifederalism onto the existing constitution as you suggest? (Your proposal splits the difference, for sure.) Starting from scratch is revolution, restoring the constitution is evolution. Intellectually and doctrinally, I prefer the former. But if I'm being realistic, I know we'll need numbers. And there are simply way more people committed to the Constitutional order, who appeal to it as holy writ. Counterpower takes numbers. Still, I am committed to finding a better path if it becomes feasible, and talk of constitutional amendments (such as what I suggested last week) will be greeted with worries of impracticability.
Good point. We need the numbers - 2/3 of the states to get to the table with 3/4 of the states to amend; you are right - that is not realistic.
How ironic (or is it 18th century newspeak) that “A Farmer” discusses the term “Anti-Federalist” in Anti-Federalist #3:
“:…The term federalist is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
Only your last suggestion for nullification has merit, because it is possible. The tenth amendment center covers much of this in greater detail. I tried to put together a list of possible pushbacks, which states are best positioned to do so.
Are there any attorney's left in the USA willing to even take on a 9A or 10A case? The example of what has been done to those that even tried to defend President Trump jumps to mind. Even if I have a strong case will it even matter? We seem to be in a time when certain people are above the law.
Look to Michigan where our Secretary of State, Joselyn Benson, sent out absentee ballots willly nilly, nearly 800,000 of them in 2020. Michigan law explicitly stated at the time, the ballot MUST requested by the voter. We now have our Attorney General, Dana Nessel, threatening people with jail time if they even try to question the results of any given election. Nessel is also the one who sealed the results of the Antrim County forensic audit back in 2020, where the Dominion voting machines were called into question.
These elected unaccountable officials seem to be above the law. If the average person had violated election laws, they would be arrested, charged, and possibly face jail time. Benson and Nessel should face the same fate as the average person. No one is above the law.
If we can't use the legal system to solve this problem, there is only one solution left for us to pursue and I for one do not want to see that happen.
It's crazy the amount of parallels between what you described and what's happening here in Peru. Unconstitutional laws being pass thanks to the Constitutional Court of Peru (Juries among who have been recently found out that their net-worth has increased drastically. Gustavo Gutiérrez Ticse +636% wtf). Without tech, I think the only way forward is a seccesion and phisically divide the country. But... I want to bet on technology. An institutional secession has to be the way forward. A second independence that free us from Politicians
I used to think that myself (9th and 10th Amendments spell it out) until I delved into the wisdom and the warnings from the so-called “Anti-Federalists.” Until we change the corruption throughout the central government, nothing will change.
What if we could amend the Constitution to Mirror the Intent of the Articles of the Confederation, with no President (and all of those corrupt ABC agencies) or with the corrupt and biased Supreme court and let the states truly be sovereign again: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-part-iv-amending?r=76q58
I agree. I am more an anti-federalist and Brutus I is a document of breathtaking prescience. But we are a minority. So back to pragmatics: Do we cling to the vestiges of the Constitution or do we let the Empire Fall and start from scratch? Or do we try to bolt antifederalism onto the existing constitution as you suggest? (Your proposal splits the difference, for sure.) Starting from scratch is revolution, restoring the constitution is evolution. Intellectually and doctrinally, I prefer the former. But if I'm being realistic, I know we'll need numbers. And there are simply way more people committed to the Constitutional order, who appeal to it as holy writ. Counterpower takes numbers. Still, I am committed to finding a better path if it becomes feasible, and talk of constitutional amendments (such as what I suggested last week) will be greeted with worries of impracticability.
Good point. We need the numbers - 2/3 of the states to get to the table with 3/4 of the states to amend; you are right - that is not realistic.
How ironic (or is it 18th century newspeak) that “A Farmer” discusses the term “Anti-Federalist” in Anti-Federalist #3:
“:…The term federalist is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
If there is a path to least resistance, what is it, I wonder?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nullification-suggestions-tom-luther/
Only your last suggestion for nullification has merit, because it is possible. The tenth amendment center covers much of this in greater detail. I tried to put together a list of possible pushbacks, which states are best positioned to do so.
Are there any attorney's left in the USA willing to even take on a 9A or 10A case? The example of what has been done to those that even tried to defend President Trump jumps to mind. Even if I have a strong case will it even matter? We seem to be in a time when certain people are above the law.
Look to Michigan where our Secretary of State, Joselyn Benson, sent out absentee ballots willly nilly, nearly 800,000 of them in 2020. Michigan law explicitly stated at the time, the ballot MUST requested by the voter. We now have our Attorney General, Dana Nessel, threatening people with jail time if they even try to question the results of any given election. Nessel is also the one who sealed the results of the Antrim County forensic audit back in 2020, where the Dominion voting machines were called into question.
These elected unaccountable officials seem to be above the law. If the average person had violated election laws, they would be arrested, charged, and possibly face jail time. Benson and Nessel should face the same fate as the average person. No one is above the law.
If we can't use the legal system to solve this problem, there is only one solution left for us to pursue and I for one do not want to see that happen.
It's crazy the amount of parallels between what you described and what's happening here in Peru. Unconstitutional laws being pass thanks to the Constitutional Court of Peru (Juries among who have been recently found out that their net-worth has increased drastically. Gustavo Gutiérrez Ticse +636% wtf). Without tech, I think the only way forward is a seccesion and phisically divide the country. But... I want to bet on technology. An institutional secession has to be the way forward. A second independence that free us from Politicians
Grave they have already become.
You’re forgetting about the 13th. The one that was ratified in or close to 1820.