Blue and Red States should unite to call the convention of states returning sovereignty to the state

State Sovereignty Amendment-

Section 1- These several states, and the territories shall be governed by this amendment and all other amendment and articles in the constitution shall cease to apply to the states and territories therein.

Section 2- The states shall have the power to enter into treaties with other states, and nations without the authority of congress, raise armies, and trade land with other states and split internally into different states with separate state governments. States shall have the power to create their own passports, have their own citizens, states shall not be bound by the principle of republicanism and shall only be required directly elect one chamber of the legislature therein, states shall have authority over all internal matters and the state constitution shall supersede the federal constitution on all domestic matters, and the states shall have the right to leave the union if they shall hold a referendum where two thirds of citizens of the state wish to leave and become fully independent from the United States.

Section 3- All territories of the United States shall be given a binding referendum to either obtain statehood or become independent of the United States, with the exception of the district of Columbia which shall have the right only to vote for statehood.

 

This is a bridge way too far. I think there is a need to reaffirm state authority, but not sovereignty. I strongly favor the current Convention of the States Project, but greatly oppose breaking up the US into 50 or so different countries.

 

I think its the only solution to the uncivil war we are in. Let the states to their own ways, we are too far gone from each other, Dems and Reps.

 

With state sovereignty, you are quite literally proposing to go back to the Articles of Confederation, and that is not happening. The GOP in the 1990s and 2000s wanted, and hoped for, a state Constitutional convention in hopes that it will pass some amendments that favor conservative values, most on the socially conservative side, redefine the 2a, redefine the commerce clause, and redefine the necessary and proper clause. But that did not go anywhere. But to propose a sovereign citizen movement amendment will not be accepted by even the Freedom Caucus, and this is more of a pipedream than anything else.

 

we are not in a CW. We are in a political war of the wills, but that is not a civil war. Only a sovereign citizen would be inclined to think so because they think everyone is out to get them in one form or another.

 

Hell no, that is dissolving the US. We just need a Balanced Budget Amendment and for State Legislatures to have the power to recall their Senator.

We are such prime real estate, that if you break up the US, it will promptly become the playground for warring foreign nations looking to incorporate chunks of it and we would see the US as the constant battleground for foreign wars.

 

Uncivil war refers to the tribalistic policies of Red or Blue team the country is locked in on with one side trying to amass power at any cost necessary.

 

Seems a bit premature. The biggest hindrance to left/right being able to govern how they want is eachother and the narrow majorities between them in most states. This would most easily be alleviated by allowing areas with sufficient support to switch from the state where they feel they're an oppressed minority to a bordering state that more closely aligns with their political ideals. Many states could achieve a clear majority and avoid a lot of political obstructionism simply by letting some of their more oppositional regions go and bringing in others that are more agreeable.

 

Delete

 

I would rather states go sovereign than a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention would likely bind us to a more liberal constitution.

 

There is no plan for a constitutional convention. There is a project pushing for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution as spelled out in Article V and does what congress does routinely.

 

Although both major political parties want to amass political power, you proposal does the same thing, just on an individual state scale. It really does not solve the problem, just enhances and multiplies the problem 50 fold.

 

ridiculous.

1. if you want an amendment propose one. there is aerp reason to open up the billionaire sponsored revision of our constitution through a convention.

2. state sovereignty? no. do we need an amendment reaffirming the surrender at appomattox and the status of states as mere administrative subdivisions, with no power to oppress their own citizens? the fourteenth amendment should work nicely.

3. the vote for statehood is over. the states are united.

 

If you look up the number of states that have tried this, you find that all 50 have applied, met the quorums, and all attempts have been rebuffed or evaded by congress as not meeting the requirements.
One man from I think Montana- actually sued each and every member of congress in an effort to force them to obey that provision of the constitution- and lost.

Congress does not like the idea.... of the people having that power.

 

That still opens up the constitution for change. If you think conservatives outnumber liberals you’re out of your mind. It will end in a more liberal constitution. It will lock us into their BS. I totally do not support that

 

the constitution proposed by koch and "americans for prosperity" woll probably not be very liberal.

i say again. why not proose an amendment or 2. ?the gavel at an art 5 convention opens the floor to anything that koch wants,

 

We will absolutely NOT get a more conservative constitution than we have now.

 

then call it off. i do not think that any normal american will benefit from a new constitution, or amendment, proposed in this atmosphere. .

 

1. The convention would be state legislatures not billionaires.

2. The states aren't administrative divisions they are sovereign and separate entities that agree what power the central government holds.

3. That part is specifically about giving the Territories the right to either become states or be independent vs keeping them in limbo.

 

Except if you call for a convention, anything and everything is on the table. Its why it hasn't been used.

 

and we could do away with our present military and each state could have its own military.
and some states could sign economic and cultural agreements with China or Russia or North Korea
if war broke out some states could decide to fight others not to
each state could regulate the air traffic over its territory and transportation across its territory
States on the ocean or along the border could charge tariffs for goods passing through their state
it would be difficult to fund the Federal government as states would dispute how much money to give them
we could go back to states issuing their own currency
borders would have to be watched as more liberal states would welcome immigrants and allow them to cross into other states that may not want them

What if parts of states wanted to be separate from other parts of the same state?

This needs more thought.

 

The concept was to have a union of states, not a bunch of states with no relationship with each other. All we need to do is to move most of what federal government does to the states, let them collect the taxes and support the federal government for the services they need from it. Those services are defend the nation, deal and treat with other nations, maintain a stable currency, resolve interstate disputes and operate a postal service. This is what the founders intended because they wrote it into the constitution.

 

There really was a LOT that they simply did not know, wasn't there.

You can't blame them. They didn't even have cars.

I'm about to fly to Boston. I'm sure as hell glad I won't be crossing a dozen states with their own private enterprise versions of air traffic control, who are fine with radio stations using frequencies such as those used by passenger planes, who have airplanes meeting lowest common denominator state manufacturing and flown by pilots "certified" in states that don't happen to give a crap.

Just sayin - I LIKE America. People should think long and hard before actually succeeding in F'ing it up.

 

Air traffic would be one of the few things kept under the federal government as its actually interstate.

 

1. Who do you think funds state legislatures? I can think of Koch, Crow, and a whole bunch of others now that Citizens United pretty much makes campaign contributions by US persons practically unlimited. And the politicians would take that money and run with it to hog heaven.

2. Yes they are, but we do have separation of powers with the 10th amendment and so forth.

3. I think you need to consider the United States of Texas that would practically dominate all states including California and Florida.