Is the dissolution of the Union what you want?

 

Lots of you folks on the right have written to me to say that the appointment of a Democrat to be FBI director is out of the question.  Do you really mean that?  IMO we are a stage of potential dissolution of the Union that resembles 1859.  To say that a Democrat could not and would not preside over an FBI investigation that would reveal the truth is an admission of the disappearance of the level of comity needed to hold the country together.  I question your judgement about this.  1- Nothing has thus far been "leaked" that demonstrates ANY collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia or Russians.  The Democrats are outraged because Lavrov and Putin laugh at the innuendo and agitprop in the media?  Well, why would they not?  There is no proof of any kind thus far.  Even Senator Feinstein admits that.  2-  The FBI is a large organization.  Many in the Bureau and in DoJ will know what the investigation reveals.  Do you really imagine that all those people would help conceal a result in the investigation that exonerates Trump?

Eleven state legislatures have voted for a new constitutional convention.  Thirty four are required, twenty-three more.  Amendments  produced by such a convention would normally require approval by the US Congress and the state legislatures, but, IMO, there would be no way on earth to confine the outcome of such a convention to these requirements any more than there was in the instance of the first constitutional convention in the Eighteenth Century.  In that instance the convention was called to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but the convention simply seized control of the process and created a wholly new form of government.

Is that what you want?  If feelings continue to run in the direction they now take on the left and right you may well have your wishes fulfilled.  pl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Comments

[The Twisted Genius]

Well said, Colonel Lang. I don't think the current social divide and hardening of opinions into articles of faith can be attributed just to the widening gap between expectations and actual economic conditions among large swaths of Americans. I put a large part of the blame on the nature of our information society and the failure of an education system to properly teach history, civics, morals and manners. A proper education system wouldn't make a society of angels. We'd still have plenty of no-good scoundrels, but it would ensure that most people would at least know what being a good citizen entails.

[MRW]

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

[turcopolier]

MRW

I am not a Garter Knight so your meaning is obscure to me. pl

[scott s.]

As a matter of logic, it doesn't seen possible to create a governing document which has the possibility of amendment, but somehow limits the scope of amendment (what stops an amendment from simply eliminating article V).

I don't see why the mode of proposing amendment (via Congress or states convention) has any difference on the scope of amendments, nor do I see why the "hair pulling" over what a states convention might propose is warranted. Either way it must go through ratification of 3/4s of the states' legislatures.

During the nullification crisis (and contrary to the "proof" of Trump's idiocy I find the question of the counter-factual of Jackson being around at the time of Kansas-Nebraska interesting) Jackson dispatched his VP Martin Van Buren to the NY state legislature to ghostwrite a resolution on the doctrine of nullification. Van Buren's resolution (as Jackson requested) denied the validity of nullification, but then went further into the core political issue of the relation of the states to the "general government" (as the Feds were called in those days). Van Buren's argument was that all three branches of the federal government had a vested interest in increasing the power of the federal government relative to the states, and the concept of "separation of powers" was no brake on federal power (which is why Amendment X is just so much pablum). Van Buren (correctly in my view) foresaw that the natural tension in state vs federal powers would tend to result in either one side or the other becoming dominant. The only check of federal dominance in Van Buren's view was the power of the states convention. This he saw as the proper remedy, not nullification. Where I think Van Buren erred, is that he seemed to assume the states would be very jealous of their power and would act collectively to protect it. The reality seems to be that states (at least a significant number) are perfectly happy to being reduced to little more than administrative elements of the federal government.

As an aside, the "sanctuary" movement seems to me exactly designed to mimic the "personal liberty" laws enacted at the north in the 1850s to prevent state assistance in administering the Fugitive Slave Act. All the questions of state vs federal power seem to have been asked in connection with those earlier laws.

[Augustin L]

The Plutocrats and their lobbies are pushing hard for a new convention. They want to restrict the franchise, do away with the republic and enshrine Citizens United divine rights (Blankfein: I'm doing gods work) in a new constitution. With the new robotics, atomically precise manufacturing and AI coming down the pipeline, plutocrats have little to no use for 80% of the population. With all the new cognitive weaponry at their disposal, I think they can succeed.

[Jack]

Sir

You are absolutely correct. A constitutional convention could go anyway and could move far away from our current constitutional republic. I believe the GOP are one state away from having the 34 states required. Imagine McCain and his office wife all over that convention!!

The Democrats keep whining about why their anointed Borg Queen lost the election to the "buffoon" Trump. They don't get why even the "buffoon" defeated their sure thing. They keep losing state houses and legislatures. Losing states even under their "messiah". Instead of reflecting on why the voters are repudiating them, they stay in their bubble and blame everyone else. This Russia hysteria looks very similar to the old McCarthy witchhunts.

DC is completely dysfunctional while ensconced in their groupthink. The country in the meantime is breaking apart in the rigidity of people's views. Everyone now self selects and reinforce their biases and only look at issues, news and opinions that they are predisposed to. We are getting close to the environment during Nixon's first term. I recall the race riots across the country, the battle with the radicals during the Democratic convention and the media hysteria. This time it could be the Deplorables agitating against the political, media and corporate establishment backed by the coastal/urban crowd who have enjoyed the benefits of the rising income inequality. The next civil war will not be a War Between States but a War Within Every State!

[Eric Newhill]

Sir,
Basically what the left is driving towards is Sodom and Gomorrah with Karl Marx as El Presidente. They also wish to destroy the Constitution and replace it with something that comes out of a social sciences think tank. That's just for starters.

There is no working with these people. Every compromise is part of the slow slide towards the destruction of the country as we know it and closer to an end resembling what Venezuela is experiencing.

Make Yates a special investigator/prosecutor for the Russian thing and get rid of her when she's done. The Dems have been calling for a independent investigator. That should make them extra happy. If she is made FBI director for the sole purpose of handling the investigation, Trump - and America - will end up paying for it for years to come as she obstructs executive directives.

IMO, civil war or a dissolving of the union is inevitable. The education system k- 12 and up through the universities and colleges has been taken over by adherents of a cancerous ideology and their product is infected at rates that do not bode well for the future. There are separate indoctrination programs for the feral savages that don't complete k-12 (e.g. denizens of S. Chicago, Compton, Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson). These are all zombie warriors for certain elites. I'd rather fight them than join them or become their captives.

[John_Frank]

Honi soit qui mal y pense is an Anglo-Norman maxim that means, "May he be shamed who thinks badly of it". Its literal translation from Old French is, "Shame be to him who thinks evil of it." It is sometimes re-interpreted as "Evil (or shame) be to him that evil thinks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense

[Eric Newhill]

TTG,
the education system is wholly controlled by the left. What you are seeing is the result of the leftist cancer infecting our society. How can such people be reasoned with? How can one work with them? Why would one wish to please them?

The information system is also largely leftist controlled.

[trinlae]

Well I am not seeing it as so clear cut, and those who talk about "left" on SST seem to imply anyone who is not GOP.

Meanwhile, among middle aged and younger I am seeing huge consensus on multiple policy issues between alt right, libertarians, independents, and alt left/greens/sandernistas with the anti corruption theme and fidelity to constitution (especially privacy in the face of the unaccountable, expensive, survelliance state), net neutrality, and non interference foreign affairs policy having highest agreement and priority, and open willingness to coalition on these issues.

In other words, Sandernista/Green/alt left/independents are also united in a no confidence vote in Democrat Party top tier and Obama/Clinton crony-land. Insofar as Trump is unable to differentiate himself from the Obama-Clinton political cultural nexus (Soros-Kuchner partnerships etc), his flanks are exposed and vulnerable.

That is Main St consensus. Main St doesnt care which party stripe is in DC appointments, if only they would be ethical and anti corruption, imo. I.e., Larry Wilkerson is loved by left for standing on principle, even though he is GOP as he openly discloses. Someone of that caliber is whqt is wanted. Not the usual Wall St Hollywood fluff-n-nutter money laundering agents masquerading as public servants lol.

[FourthAndLong]

Meaning those who ponder secession are evil ? If so I could not agree more.

[trinlae]

Here's an example of pervasive lack of confidence in either legacy party c/o alt (true) left Black Agenda Report's chief editor Glen Ford:

https://blackagendareport.com/jail_obama_and_trump_for_war_crimes

[turcopolier]

trinlae

"I am not seeing it as so clear cut, and those who talk about "left" on SST seem to imply anyone who is not GOP." You are not seeing what as not so clear cut? I am not s member of the GOP and the vision of "the left" in American society seems clear to me. Are you on "the left?" pl

[Kooshy]

Colonel, with due respect, this country is not going to fall apart on the count of this one guy nobody liked. You have said it before, he served with the trust and at pleasure of the presisdent, he lost that trust, the way he was acting, he deserved and had it coming.

[turcopolier]

fourthandlong

Do you see the present constitution as divinely ordained rather than a politically negotiated document? If you do not see it as divine, something like the Quran, then why would those who do not see it as necessarily perpetual be "evil?" pl

[turcopolier]

kooshy

You don't get it. This has nothing to do with Comey and everything to do with the seemingly ever increasing alienation among discreet groups of Americans. Maybe you can't see that from Palos Verdes or wherever it is. pl

[turcopolier]

John Franck

Ah, merci, je n'avais pas compris que vous connaissiez la langue Anglo-Normande si bien. pl

[FourthAndLong]

Excuse me Colonel, I glitched. My halfzheimers I guess. I mentally went from "dissolution" to "secession" in part by way of contemplation of 1859. No I don't see the constitution as divinely ordained, not consciously at least. Though the arguments over constitutionality and unconstitutionality over the years often appear to have a religious fervor to them and I've likely revealed unconscious reverence of such nature or quality.Wouldn't surprise me. I suppose secession is not necessarily "evil" either, though that is not what was up for discussion.

Mental lapse.

[Karl Kolchak]

Is that what I want? Absolutely, for it would finally mean the end of the American war machine. The world would be much better of for it.

[BraveNewWorld]

Up in Canada we have been battling reopening the constitution for decades as Quebec has had a shopping list that they wanted changed and kept threatening to leave if they didn't get what they wanted. But once you open that a crack every province suddenly has a shopping list of things they want and constitutional change becomes impossible.

That is with 10 provinces and 3 territories (who would all demand to be made provinces if the constitution was opened) the US with 52 states and how many territories would be far uglier. The up side for the US is that it has an amending formula for simple (relative) things. This is a fist fight you really don't want, especially since I highly suspect what the politicians want (Israel as 53 for example) and what the people want would be very, very different things.

[turcopolier]

bravenewworld

The US Constitution was created by the states. Canadian provinces did not create the Canadian Confederation. The Westminster Parliament did that. If enough states vote for a convention this would be a convention. pl

[BrotherJoe]

Our Constitution is being changed every year by unelected leftist Supreme Court judges. Would a Constitutional Convention be any worse? At least there would be the chance for conservatives to bring to bear the power of the (perhaps illusory)
silent majority. I'd choose that way rather than death by a thousand cuts.

[Account Deleted]

Colonel,

You are absolutely right to highlight this issue at what is, each day, more evidently a critical time for America.

The Comey-replacement situation is just symptomatic of the greater malaise in the US political system. Those who cannot see where this leads, if attitudes harden and all consensus ultimately evaporates simply lack imagination, IMHO. The Union is not guaranteed by the laws of nature or by a divine higher authority. It is only maintained by the common consent of the people and the efforts of their elected representatives - regardless of whether their party currently holds power.

Who needs a conspiracy from a foreign state when our own politicians seem well able to engineer a collapse from within.

[turcopolier]

Karl Kolchak

Are you an American? If not, this is none of your business. pl

[lucopter]

Dissolution of the Union is inevitable. The 1965 immigration act and the chain-immigration that it subsequently triggered has compromised the national integrity of the United States. This was bound to happen. You can't change the demographics of a nation without fracturing it.

The sad part of this story is that due to the decades long censorship in US media, Americans are the last people on earth to learn about this.

Hopefully future historians can analyze what happened to us and learn from our mistakes.