Is there a reasonable consequence to be imposed if a law maker sponsors or votes ...

[ATN082268]

Folks want to limit the liberties of folks who disagree with them and cannot see that the strength of our country is that we do not punish those who disagree with us.

The doctrine of legislative immunity is an important part of the entire picture of not using the force of law to control ideas and proposals. The legislature is not free if members cannot express themselves or propose items.

No. The Amendment that I suggested has no effect on proposals, discussions or any other free speech of anyone.

The ballot box is the mechanism for change.

Even if that is/was an effective mechanism for change, it isn't the only one as you can also change (amend) the U.S Constitution.

The Constitution protects us from changes that would limit liberty.

You mean the same Constitution with all of the Amendments, including the one I proposed? And the U.S. Constitution has been changed a number of times over the years.

It is stunning that folks who want the right to have lethal weapons to protect against tyranny want to use force of law to impose ideological controls over the legislature.

Liberty isn't just playing gun boy.

So is it better to use lethal force against the government or limit the power of government via Constitutional Amendment? If you want to think of what I have proposed as politicians being less free to reduce the freedom of others, I'm O.K. with that

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So is it better to use lethal force against the government or limit the power of government via Constitutional Amendment? If you want to think of what I have proposed as politicians being less free to reduce the freedom of others, I'm O.K. with that

You shouldn't be. And the fact that you now profess to be casts enough doubt on your understanding of how things are in the world to discredit your previous suggestions in this thread.

Revolution is a lousy way to try to fix things. Revolutions are inherently tyrannical. Consider the French Revolution or the Paris Commune of 1871. The there was the Russian Revolution, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, etc., -- all tyrannical.

Revolutions, tend to destroy existing political and public institutions, leaving a vacuum. And that vacuum will be filled by whoever has the power and force of arms to do so. And thus revolution naturally encourages new tyranny.

The American Revolution was different only because at the time the Thirteen Colonies were in their own rights significant economic and political entities, and they had been for some time. Each was substantially self governing, subject to the oversight of the Crown. Each had its public administration infrastructure.

The independent economic prosperity of the Colonies in fact laid the foundation for the Revolution. England wanted money, and the economic prosperity of the Colonies made them an attractive revenue source. And so England started to increase its economic demands (in the form of taxes and control of commercial activities) to the point that many of the more successful colonists, like many of our Founding Fathers, were motivated to resist the English attempts at stifling colonial prosperity. And colonial resistance to English economic policies led to English political constraints. And so we broke with England.

Indeed, the Revolution was not so much a Revolution as it was a war of secession. We weren't interested in toppling the government of England. We wanted to cast off its political yoke and go our own way. We simply wanted to secede. And after the Revolution, the government of England continued on as it had before -- except without us.

And we continued on about our business with our existing, indigenous political and public institutions. And working through our existing political institutions we by political process began to remake the former colonies into a loose union under the Articles of Confederation. And when those Articles of Confederation proved a disappointment, we again turned to politics to fashion a new basis for an amalgamation under a new Constitution of the former colonies.

Of course, your suggestions in this thread also demonstrate you, at the core of things, support tyranny -- as long as you are the tyrant.

 

[Metal god]

The American Revolution was different only because at the time the Thirteen Colonies were in their own rights significant economic and political entities, and they had been for some time. Each was substantially self governing, subject to the oversight of the Crown. Each had its public administration infrastructure.

Not that this is important to the thread but how is that any different then lets say CA to the Federal government ? CA has their own rights significant economic and political entities and they are subject to the oversight of the Crown/Washington .

Would it be reasonable for CA to revolt against the Federal government and cast off its political yoke and go our own way ?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Not that this is important to the thread but how is that any different then lets say CA to the Federal government ? CA has their own rights significant economic and political entities and they are subject to the oversight of the Crown/Washington .....

California (or any State) is far more intertwined with the federal government. For just a few of examples:

1. A great many Californians depend on Medicare as their primary medical coverage, and Medicare is primarily funded by the federal government. How would those persons medical bills get paid without the contribution of federal funds? What you be the effect of that loss of revenue to California's medical care infrastructure? Do you have any idea how much money it takes to run a hospital?
   
   
2. California has committed to pay medical bills for the medically indigent (through the MediCal program). The federal government makes a substantial financial contribution to MediCal (and other state welfare programs). How could California could meet its financial obligations under MediCal (or other welfare programs) without federal funds?
   
   
3. California is not fully self-sufficient for water or power and depends on water and power purchased and imported from other States.

 

[Metal god]

Very good points especially the water . I would assume the citizens of CA would no longer pay federal taxes therefore those taxes could be used as new medical taxes for CA . As well as other natural resources the state has that it now could keep for it self . I get that it would be hard but could be done but I also understand it's not likely ever going to happen for any state . My point was very narrow in so much as are states and local governments are quite independent of the federal government and a few could likely self sustain .

Anyways this is off topic and I really should not have brought it up .

 

[44 AMP]

Would it be reasonable for CA to revolt against the Federal government and cast off its political yoke and go our own way ?

It would be, if we hadn't had a Civil War in the 1860s over the same basic issue.

It would be, if the Secessionist cause had WON. They didn't.

In the century and a half since, states connections with, and control/influence by the Federal government has gotten stronger and stronger.

The political principle that people get to decide for themselves if they want their state to be in the UNITED STATES exists only as a principle, until some state actually formally secedes and "gets away with it".

I understand the desire to see lawmakers who make laws that hurt people share in the misery they caused. I understand how frustrating it is that the only penalty our system allows is they lose their jobs (and only if ENOUGH people agree).

But going after them, after the fact, and imposing penalties, fines, jail etc. for the intended and UNINTENDED consequences of the laws they passed is simply the wrong way to go about it.

The system must allow for the people we elect to propose, discuss, and vote on every stupid boneheaded foolish idea they come up with, or its not freedom.

 

[carguychris]

If you want to think of what I have proposed as politicians being less free to reduce the freedom of others, I'm O.K. with that

Who are these "others"? To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, isn't our government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

And to paraphrase Juvenal, who watches the watchmen? The proposal...

... [the] bill has to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down by a 9-0 vote. Even then, the punishment is limited to what is prescribed in the Constitutional Amendment...

...essentially makes the SCOTUS into more of a supra-legislature than it is today, which many folks think has already gone too far.

The SCOTUS enacts more 9-0 decisions than most people realize, many of them on mundane matters of administrative law relating to minor provisions buried in routine bills. This proposal would put most of Congress in the penalty box faster than you may assume, inflating the power of the Supreme Court and the President. This would steadily erode Congressional power. Why risk punishment? It's best to simply pass vague bills that hand extremely broad authority to the President; let him or her worry about following the Constitution.

What happens next when the President and the SCOTUS start to conspire with one another?

The answer more-or-less describes how the system works in some nominally democratic countries that realistically function as autocracies, e.g. Russia and Turkey.

 

[Frank Ettin]

..... I would assume the citizens of CA would no longer pay federal taxes therefore those taxes could be used as new medical taxes for CA ...

Only if California can enact legislation to support a tax at that rate, and only if the overall economy of California could support it.

.... I get that it would be hard but could be done....

Really? Why don't you work it all out -- rigorously, with real data -- in a formal way and addressing all the detail? Unless/until you do that, if you even could, you're just guessing.

 

[Evan Thomas]

To penalize lawmakers for proposing or voting for a law that's later found unconstitutional would be no different from making something illegal and then enforcing that law retroactively, punishing people for something they did when it was legal. I doubt that anyone here thinks that would be a good idea -- at least I hope not.

No, for at least a couple of reasons. First, the Constitutional Amendment in question (the one I proposed) would only apply to politicians after the Amendment was passed. It isn't retroactively applied, it is in full effect before any politician votes for a bill that it applies to. Secondly, it doesn't apply to politicians proposing a bill, only politicians voting for a bill that passes. If you are generally satisfied with the way politicians run this country, then so be it...

You have entirely missed my point. My analogy applies to the effects of your proposed amendment, not to some retroactive application of the amendment itself; it's obvious that the latter wasn't what you were suggesting.

Let me try to explain it more clearly. A law is passed, meaning that a majority of lawmakers voted for it in good faith. Two or more years later, after a more or less protracted court battle, the law is found to be unconstitutional. Under your proposal, those lawmakers would then be punished retroactively for having voted for something they believed to be constitutional at the time their votes were cast. This is exactly analogous to a situation in which someone is punished retroactively for an action which was legal at the time it was carried out.

I hope that helps to clarify my point, which is that it is the job of the courts to decide after the fact whether a law is constitutional. The effect of your proposal would be to erode even further the balance of power among the three branches of government, as carguychris pointed out:

This proposal would put most of Congress in the penalty box faster than you may assume, inflating the power of the Supreme Court and the President. This would steadily erode Congressional power. Why risk punishment? It's best to simply pass vague bills that hand extremely broad authority to the President; let him or her worry about following the Constitution.

 

[Metal god]

What the heck are you talking about Frank . What do you mean work it all out and see if it could work ? Let me ask you this , do you beleave a geographical area with the fifth largest economy in the world could not stand on its own . Are you forgetting they would be starting there own country and establishing there own laws to follow .

They even get to make up their own definition of eminent domain .

To answer your question specifically no I cannot work that out for you right here real quick . it would take several people in many different fields of expertise to work it all out but to act as if a new country could not be born in the world today is silly , especially one that starts out with the fifth largest economy in the world .

 

[Frank Ettin]

What the heck are you talking about Frank . What do you mean work it all out and see if it could work ? Let me ask you this , do you beleave a geographical area with the fifth largest economy in the world could not stand on its own . Are you forgetting they would be starting there own country and establishing there own laws to follow .....

My point is that you really don't understand this stuff. There are so many details, so many interrelationships, that disconnecting everything would be a monumental task.

What about currency? What would California's money be and how would it be valued on the world market?

What about banking? Deposits in banks in California, like the rest of the country, are insured by the federal government. What happens if California were to secede?

And yes, New California would need to establish laws as an independent country. But it also has laws now and a Constitution.

...To answer your question specifically no I cannot work that out for you right here real quick...

You couldn't do it no matter how much time you had. Modeling a change like this would be a huge task. Let's watch how Great Britain extricates itself from the EU, and that's small potatoes compared to a State, with all the interrelationships and interdependencies, leaving the U. S.

But it's moot anyway. It's not going to happen. If nothing else, the Supreme Court has ruled that a State may not unilaterally secede from the Union (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)).

 

[zincwarrior]

Everyone might want to ease back on the angry word meter. Its getting a bit hostile...

OT but California has a massive problem if it wanted to secede. It gets its water from other states. Shut that off and Southern California would be out of water in 30 days.

But it's moot anyway. It's not going to happen. If nothing else, the Supreme Court has ruled that a State may not unilaterally secede from the Union (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)).

Actually there's earlier and far more persuasive case law: Lee vs. Grant (1865, appeal denied)

 

[carguychris]

At the risk of prolonging what's arguably a thread hijack, there IS recent precedent for a major country suddenly splitting apart, without really working out all of the details beforehand.

The collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, perhaps this proves Frank's point: this process did NOT go well for the new component parts.

Although, to me, it brings up another interesting question: what to do about the military, particularly the huge and vital Naval Base Coronado complex in San Diego. Would this be handled like Guantanamo Bay, or (dare I say it) Sevastopol?

 

[44 AMP]

Playing the what if game a little bit, as Frank touched on, there's the money to consider...

do you beleave a geographical area with the fifth largest economy in the world could not stand on its own

What happens to that "world's 5th largest economy" if the Fed govt, freezes or seizes all assets not physically in California? If the rest of the US is ordered to boycott them in all regards??

Its more than just a minor stumbling block. Any assumptions we could make are just guesses. IF the people of CA stopped paying the Fed govt and used that money for themselves, would it be enough to provide the citizens with those benefits and services to which they have become accustomed, and WILL demand???

Throw in another factor, the segment of the population that would rather see California as part of Mexico than as an independent nation...

I can't even begin to count the worms in just the top layer of the can when you open up California seceding from the Union.

And, as Frank pointed out, its apparently illegal as well...

here's another worm, there are major Federal military bases in CA, and they have guns and will do their best to follow what they believe to be legal orders.

I don't see how CA, or any state could secede and enforce that, unless the Federal Government agrees and allows it.

And that, I just don't see happening as long as there IS a Federal Government...

 

[Metal god]

I'm really getting tiered of you calling stupid in your talk down to me from your high horse Frank . I understand just fine , I may not be able to explain everything you want in a way you are willing to except but that does not mean I don't understand what's being said here . I'd like you to leave this thread and please don't return .

If Feds seize assets , CA seizes Federal assets inside the state . That would assume this was a hostile transition . I'm not trying to argue what's right or wrong just if it's possible . I say yes it is and nobody has said otherwise . Only that it would be a monumental task . I don't disagree with that at all .

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm really getting tiered of you calling stupid in your talk down to me from your high horse Frank . I understand just fine , I may not be able to explain everything you want in a way you are willing to except but that does not mean I don't understand what's being said here . I'd like you to leave this thread and please don't return ....

First, I will not be told by you what threads to participate in.

Second, the point you're missing is that while you are promoting an idea, no one seems to be buying into it. And yet you keep pushing without coming up with any good reasons as to why we should buy into it.

You and ATN082268 seem to think it would be a fine idea for us to pillory (beyond simply not voting for them) legislators who voted for a law later found to be unconstitutional. And notwithstanding me, and others, pointing out what a lousy idea that is and why legal principles were adopted hundreds years ago, and are still accepted, to prevent that, you continue to promote that vision. And you do so without addressing the fundamental policy considerations that supported the original adoption of those legal principles. But if you can't address the core reasons for legislative immunity and explain why we should discard those reasons, why would you expect different responses from us.

Now you want to promote the secession of California from the Union, but you really can't begin to address all the practical and legal reasons why the can't/shouldn't happen and why it would be a bad idea. Indeed looking at th Yes California website I see no indication those reasons have been rigorously addressed. And this article from New York Magazine outlines why the administrative hurdles look insurmountable:

....Having said all that, the process required to make Calexit a reality is not just daunting: It’s basically impossible. The first part is the easiest: If Yes California can get its initiative onto the 2018 ballot, it needs only 50-percent-plus-one approval to amend the state constitution. But then the 2019 referendum it authorizes is on shaky legal ground, and according to Yes California’s own ground rules, it would only “pass” if 50 percent of registered voters participated and 55 percent voted for independence. The participation standard alone sets a pretty high bar for success in an off-year election; turnout in the last regular midterm election was only 42 percent.

If a Calexit referendum in California succeeded, of course, it would only take effect if the rest of the country went along with it. That would mean a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds votes in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or the first constitutional convention since 1787. The only alternative, unilateral secession, was tried in 1861, as close scholars of history could tell you, and it did not work out well....

 

[HiBC]

I'd vote for letting them go.

That way when it falls off and sinks in the ocean we won't have to pay for it.
I'm sure the U.N. will take care of them.

And we probably ought to start building the fence now

 

[JimPage]

This thread should be titled, "What Whacky Ideas do you have?"

 

[2ndsojourn]

"I'd vote for letting them go"
But then we'd have to build a longer wall along CA's eastern border to keep out the gunrunners.

 

[Al Norris]

Enough.