What if States Acted to end the power of the Fed. gov.?

[SerScot]

Many forget that States, right now acting in concert, have the Constitutional power to eliminate the Federal Government:

US Const. Art. V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[emphasis added]

Now, I'm not claiming this is likely but it is possible. Which prompts my question. Would the Federal Government simple disband, would the bureacracy close their doors and go home, would the military revert to State control, or would the Federal Government attempt to claim it cannot be disbanded by an action of the States regardless of the express provisions of the Constitution?

Should the Federal Government disband if so ordered?

[Cail]

Should they? Yes. Would they? Absolutely not.

Never happen of course. But if it did, you'd see the immediate conversion of our government into a militarily-backed dictatorship.

[SerScot]

Cail,

What if we have major demographic shifts such that the majority of the population is packed into 12 States? Should the minority remaining in the other 38 have the power to disband the Union? If they were to act should the express provisions of the Constitution trump the desire of the majority of the population?

[Cail]

What if we have major demographic shifts such that the majority of the population is packed into 12 States? Should the minority remaining in the other 38 have the power to disband the Union? If they were to act should the express provisions of the Constitution trump the desire of the majority of the population?

That's an interesting thought experiment.

But yes, if the majority of the population is packed into 12 states (as it is now, with 60% of the population in 12 states), then it's fair to assume that those 12 states are running the country (as they are now). I've got no issue calling the whole damn thing off over that.

[SerScot]

Interesting. I do wonder if the "big states" see their perial? As the 38 "small states" diverge culturally from the "big states" this could become a viable option.

[Ananda]

So, you would then be like the former soviet union? Or, maybe become like the eu?

[Zarathustra]

I'd prefer to be more like the former United States.

[TheFallen]

I'd prefer to be more like the former United States.

If only... but I think that horse bolted a couple of decades back.

[Vraith]

Interesting. I do wonder if the "big states" see their perial? As the 38 "small states" diverge culturally from the "big states" this could become a viable option.

The theoretical is interesting to think about...the rules do seem to allow it...
would the little guys split off from the big boys and girls?
Would they do it as a new/separate union of their own? Or as clusters, or even individual states, into new nations or unions? Alliances? Republics? Total consolidation? [Nation of New England, Great Plains Union? Rocky Mountain Treaty Organization?]
Or keep the country whole but alter the Constitution and structure of gov't?
To keep the same problem from happening again, in that case, they would have to somehow dance an odd line...protect individual freedoms, protect States rights, but LIMIT size/majority rule/democratic process.

But, SS, on the quoted bit: The cultural divisions don't follow the state-size lines. Plenty of small states will join in with Texas...but plenty will line up with NY and CA, too...so I think it stays in the theory realm forever, doesn't become viable without massive migrations or political shifts.

And that will bring war, not a friendly divorce, I suspect.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

What do you think the Federal Government should do if a minority passes an amendment disbanding it?

[Avatar]

Dunno about should, but what they would do is either ignore it or tie it up in court for 100 years.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

Which courts? Federal Courts and the Supreme Courts are part of the Federal Government. If a convention proposes an amendment disbanding them that is ratified by 38 States the Courts would cease to have any legal or Constitutional authority. I suppose the former federal government could attempt to sue in all 50 State courts but what good would that do?

[Orlion]

Avatar,

Which courts? Federal Courts and the Supreme Courts are part of the Federal Government. If a convention proposes an amendment disbanding them that is ratified by 38 States the Courts would cease to have any legal or Constitutional authority. I suppose the former federal government could attempt to sue in all 50 State courts but what good would that do?

If the Supreme Court renders the vote unconstitutional, then it wouldn't matter would it?

[SerScot]

Orlion,

The Supreme Court would no longer have any Constitutional authority if the Federal Government were disbanded as is allowed under the express terms of Article V.

[Orlion]

Orlion,

The Supreme Court would no longer have any Constitutional authority if the Federal Government were disbanded as is allowed under the express terms of Article V.

States are not allowed to interpret the meaning of Article V, as a result if the Supreme Court, the body constitutionally given the power to interpret what is constitutional, states that it does not follow, I do not think the states have any constitutional footing.

[SerScot]

Orlion,

Okay, how is the amendment power of the States acting in a convention called by a minium of 33 States (2/3's), and then ratified by a minimum of 38 States (3/4's) in any way circumscribed?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[emphasis added]

Perhaps you could argue portions of the Constitution once enacted may not be abrogated by amendment, but that would mean Blacks are not citizens of the US, Slavery was expressly Constitutional, and that alcoholic beverages were illegal throughout the US.

If States are expressly given the power to call a Constitutional convention by request of 2/3's of the State Legislatures and then ratification of any amendments recommended by 3/4's of the States there is no limit on that power. That is the nature of the power to amend.

Please explain the legal rational, beyond we said you can't, that would give the Supreme Court the power to, post dissolution by amendment, declare any action of a duly constituted Constitutional Convention who's proposed amendments are ratified null and void?

The Supreme Court's power is derived from the U.S. Constitution. What you are suggesting would require the Supreme Court to have the power to amend that document by itself. It does not have that power.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This is what I get for taking a day off.

In theory this works--enough State Legislatures getting an amendment put forth and 3/4 passing it; however, an amendment would be insufficient for disbanding or dissolving the Federal Government.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us suppose that an amendment to disband the Federal Government gets put up for a vote by 2/3 (34) of the States and is subsequently passed by 3/4 (38 ) of the States. Would the Federal Government disband? Hell no, they won't. Any amendment to disband would be met with every gun the military can bring forth and they, in turn, would move into various State capitols and declare that those Legislatures are suspended. There is no scenario, barring the emergence of superhuman abilities or alien invasion, under which our current Federal Government (regardless of who occupies the White House) will voluntarily shutter its doors.

The same would happen to any State which tries to assert its right to secede--the military would occupy the capitol and forcibly retain the State at gunpoint. In either case, there would be trouble for decades as dissent and resentment build up pressure under the realization that the only thing keeping the United States unified is a gun.

[rdhopeca]

This is what I get for taking a day off.

In theory this works--enough State Legislatures getting an amendment put forth and 3/4 passing it; however, an amendment would be insufficient for disbanding or dissolving the Federal Government.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us suppose that an amendment to disband the Federal Government gets put up for a vote by 2/3 (34) of the States and is subsequently passed by 3/4 (38 ) of the States. Would the Federal Government disband? Hell no, they won't. Any amendment to disband would be met with every gun the military can bring forth and they, in turn, would move into various State capitols and declare that those Legislatures are suspended. There is no scenario, barring the emergence of superhuman abilities or alien invasion, under which our current Federal Government (regardless of who occupies the White House) will voluntarily shutter its doors.

The same would happen to any State which tries to assert its right to secede--the military would occupy the capitol and forcibly retain the State at gunpoint. In either case, there would be trouble for decades as dissent and resentment build up pressure under the realization that the only thing keeping the United States unified is a gun.

For context, one only needs to look back so far as the Civil War.

[Orlion]

My main point is the Supreme Court does not need to change the Constitution, just interpret it. All ready, constitutional meanings are muddled by different methods of viewing the Constitution, and one might say, "Well, if we go by the Founder's intent (and surely they were all homogeneous in their intent ), the Article was only meant to give an out in the early days of the government. Now that the government has been established and ensconced, blah blah blah"

As a result, I find it hard to use the Constitution as "authoritative legal scripture" and more as a framework or foundation.

[SoulBiter]

For context, one only needs to look back so far as the Civil War.

You must be talking about "The War of Northern Aggression".

Discussion may carry on now...