Re: Why the U.S. needs a constitutional convention
Y'know... Since my posting on this thread, I've had a change of heart. I think a constitutional convention is necessary and needed. For whatever reason, I think we should get started now.
I invoke my own statement:
"And sure, you can start the convention on the premise that the BoR stands, but the very nature of the convention allows that they can throw out their own premises and start all over, once convened. That's what they did last time, so there is a very clear historical precedent."
Once convened, I think we should press for the disunion of the states and the formation of smaller nations. That way most could disassociate with those of vastly variant interests. This would make the current united states a disjointed set of squabbling nations, that cannot come to agreement upon much of anything. Currency exchange will become a major North American bottomfeeder niche occupation, displacing fast-food service.
Yeah... The thing is, we'll have to squabble about how to split up all the warheads, or should we just acknowledge right offhand that Saskatitobadakota is the largest nuclear power in the world and lobby to get them to destroy their weapons of mass destruction? Could we apply to North Korea for protection from Saskatitobadakota?
I nominate Crumb to represent Cascadia.
|