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

[Cail]

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.

But if the amendment passed, there would be no more Supreme Court.

But it would never get that far. Once word got out, martial law would be declared and the state governments would cease to exist. There might be local prefectures set up with the intent of keeping people in line, but one way or the other, it'd be the end of the country.

[SerScot]

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.

How, if the States eliminate the Federal Government (of which the Supreme Court is a piece), can the Supreme Court have any Constitutional authority to say the State's actions were unconstitutional?

[SerScot]

Hashi,

Practically speaking, I think you are correct. However, I'm simply curious, in a hypothetical sense, to see how the Feds would react to the States asserting their unambigous power to pull hard on the reins of Federal power.

There is a movement to call a general Constitutional Convention:

www.callaconvention.org/

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That is how they would react. The military would occupy the State capitols and say "no, we don't think so". The Legislatures which voted to ratify would be dissolved and new interim ones would be appointed until elections could be held.

It is only on very rare occasions that governments voluntarily abdicate--the only example I can think of right now is Czechoslovakia before it split back into two countries--and our government will not go down without a fight.

There may be a movement but I wouldn't expend any energy on it. Many people may think things are bad here but the reality of the situation is that things are not nearly bad enough to cause people to want to bring about change.

[Vraith]

However, I'm simply curious, in a hypothetical sense, to see how the Feds would react to the States asserting their unambigous power to pull hard on the reins of Federal power.

I think at the first real sign of such a thing [say more than 1/3rd of the population or legislature of say more than 3 or 4 states, to be totally arbitrary in assessing the threat assessment of our Gov't folk] money power would come into play. Heavy spending in the political/media arena, heavy withdrawal of Fed funding to the states themselves.
If that didn't work [in some conditions it might even backfire, recruiting more states to join in] we'd see a wave of Federal law-enforcement actions. FBI, Homeland Sec., NSA, Secret Service, Marshals, pretty much everyone who can will. Arrests, charges, indictments. [[a fair number of these arrests, I suspect, will be based on real illegal activity...stuff that's known in the shadows, a card up the sleeve saved days like these]]

If THAT didn't work, [and it, too, could well backfire] then you'd see some variety of martial law, as Cail suggested some time ago.

Whatever the process/method that starts such a ball rolling, there are only two outcomes: failure of the political process fairly early on, before it's a real threat, or war--maybe small/tactical, maybe big...no way to predict which...but definitely war on some scale.

What SHOULD happen [even though it's not exactly in line with the constitutional rules as they stand] is the States who want to stay [and have the majority in the scenario proposed] should stay...and tell the minority to get bent.
"You can have your freedom [leave the union], but we like our Constitution/Gov't just fine as it is. [[or at least better than anything YOU are gonna come up with]]. And BTW, we're taking the planes, ships, and nukes with us."

[SerScot]

Vraith,

What SHOULD happen [even though it's not exactly in line with the constitutional rules as they stand] is the States who want to stay [and have the majority in the scenario proposed] should stay...and tell the minority to get bent.
"You can have your freedom [leave the union], but we like our Constitution/Gov't just fine as it is. [[or at least better than anything YOU are gonna come up with]]. And BTW, we're taking the planes, ships, and nukes with us."

It would likely be a bycoastal nation (a la East and West Pakistan pre 1971). That's not a recipe for success. The National Guard in the States are not poorly armed so even if the Feds claim the Regular Military equipment the States that leave wouldn't be defenseless.

[Ananda]

I am curious: what makes people who say the us gov would go out of control in this scenario think that the new states wouldn't do the same?

[rdhopeca]

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...

I was merely pointing out historical instances of secession and other Constitutionally provided for actions on behalf of states and how they were handled by the federal government. Call it what you will.

[SerScot]

Ananda,

Well, the States would retain their existing power. It is the Feds whose power would be threatened by this action. Therefore, the speculation is that the Feds would then, as their offical power was being taken from them, act to enforce their de facto power since their de jure power was gone.

This is not to say the newly independent states wouldn't do some crazy stupid shit, I'm sure they would but that would be different from the former Federal Government lashing out to use the barrel of a gun rather than legal justification to enforce its power.

[Ananda]

SerScot,

In a situation where people from an area almost all support such a step, there may be little for the newly formed state to do other than come up with a new system. However, what will the areas where there is a deep divide do when people against it go into the streets in protest alla arab spring style (not to be confused with gangnam style)? Will they not have seized the military bases in their territory and put down the protestors?

[SerScot]

Ananda,

Perhaps. The question I have is if the States were to act as they have the authority to act and disband the Federal Government for any or no reason what, at that point, is the most moral and proper position for the people that make up the former Federal Government to take?

Would it be immoral to fail to assert the power the Federal government would retain even without legal justification for its existence? Would it be immoral for the former Federal government to take any action after it has been disbanded?

I think this is a much harder question than the purely legal one.

[Cail]

As a straight legal and moral matter, once the people have spoken, it's the government's job to do what they're told. Any move by the federal government to prevent the people from so speaking, or to resist their decision would be both illegal and immoral.

But that's exactly what would happen.

[rdhopeca]

It will never get that far. The states don't have the solidarity to take the steps necessary, and sadly enough, the people no longer have the fortitude to stand behind it and fight for it.

[SerScot]

Cail,

But if a majority of the States but a minority of the population want the Federal Government disbanded is disbanding really "listening to the people"?

[Vraith]

As a straight legal and moral matter, once the people have spoken, it's the government's job to do what they're told. Any move by the federal government to prevent the people from so speaking, or to resist their decision would be both illegal and immoral.

But that's exactly what would happen.

But in the hypothetical we're talking about it wouldn't BE "the people."
In theory, we could be talking about roughly 75million people eliminating the Gov't that 250million+ people want.
[[actually, I suppose technically...and even more impossible...we could be talking about a few hundred people eliminating the Gov't that 300+ million want...if the legislatures of the 38 states were making the decision and decided to just do it without asking the peeps.]]

The legality of dismantling seems to work. But the morality not so much.

Still...you're probably correct even if it was a real majority of all the people. They wouldn't just step down. And I suspect it would be the rare bi-partisan reaction. Rep and Dem federal folk would agree to exert force to keep the Gov't in place.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

But after force is exerted what kind of government would we be left with? The States would clearly be acting within their retained power. Power expressly preserved in the text of the Constitution. How do you close that box once it is opened?

[Damelon]

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.

I live in a big state. For every $1.00 sent to Washington we (Illinois) get $0.75 back. What peril do we face? Bye, but from here on out you pay your own way.

[aliantha]

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.

I live in a big state. For every $1.00 sent to Washington we (Illinois) get $0.75 back. What peril do we face? Bye, but from here on out you pay your own way.

Thank you. I wanted to say this, but was too lazy to look up the figures myself.

The red states that seceded/dissolved the gummint would lose a heck of a lot more than they gained. It's the more populous blue states that fund a lot of their programs. Good luck paying for 'em on your own, guys. Buh-bye, and don't let the door hit you in the @ss on your way out.

[Vraith]

Vraith,

But after force is exerted what kind of government would we be left with? The States would clearly be acting within their retained power. Power expressly preserved in the text of the Constitution. How do you close that box once it is opened?

You don't/can't. It's the internal version of MAD. Perhaps MAS [mutually assured suicide].
Once it is done, there is no more recognizable U.S. that comes out of this.
And what does come out will not be anything like a "restoration" of the former/original/mostly mythical U.S.

[Cail]

Cail,

But if a majority of the States but a minority of the population want the Federal Government disbanded is disbanding really "listening to the people"?

It sure is, according to the articles of incorporation of our government. That's the way our government is supposed to work, and how it worked until Lincoln consolidated power in DC.

And there's nothing preventing the states from re-incorporating afterwards. Hell, there's a push in California right now to separate into 5 distinct states. I think that's a good thing, as it brings more local control. Not really any different than the whole country fragmenting into 4 or 5 distinct countries. Given the geography, we'd end up similar to Europe and the EU, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I've been saying for years that this country is too damn big. Returning to a loose confederation of sovereign states with a federal government doing nothing but overseeing international trade and defense would be ideal and rock the boat less, but there's no reason in the world that the people here wouldn't thrive being dissolved into smaller countries.