Now, something I have not read much about concerning secession- but besides losing all the “bennies” that come with Nationalism, what about the idea or I would hope fact, that upon secession, the representatives in Congress in house and senate must be recalled and the positions and offices in Washington closed. If your state secedes and you were Senator before becoming President, do you vacate the office?- and all your cronies? Please God let Illinois secede first! I know- what a laugh- with Lincolns face plastered on our license plates.

There would probably need to be a special envoy like a consulate office for each state in DC if they wanted one- much like they have for foreign nations – but heaven help us if they began to run like congressional offices all over again!

Forgive me for giving away a possible circumvention.

Ex-Pat anyone?

When new amendments are proposed, there is always a minor concession to liberty that is overwhelmed–even nullified–by the larger grant of powers to the government. I have not seen an amendment proposed in our lifetimes that would improve our government. They are all subtle attempts to overthrow what little freedom we have and incorporate it into the constitution.

It would be much better to at least keep the constitution intact and ignored than to destroy it outright. It would be fantastic if someday the people rose up and destroyed the usurper government and restored a constitutional government. I hope that someday the darkness in the hearts and minds of the People will be enlightened.

An amendment then would only have to clarify the language of those phrases to specifically be applied to the fulfillment of the enumerated powers.

BUT, these things are pointless in that the FEDERAL government appoints the attendees to a con-con and would be incalculably dangerous to put this Senate and Congress, under the influence of this President in charge of appointing the team.

I completely agree. As Dr. Hoppe has pointed out regularly, this is a State Constitution interpreted by the State. The State will always interpret the document to justify its expansion. Amendments which limit its power are ignored or reinterpreted to augment the power of the State. Of course, this is exactly what the anti-Federalists predicted.

I think our efforts would be better used in convincing people that the Constitution is meaningless rather than dreaming up new amendments which will probably never be ratified or if they are ratified, will become justifications by the State to expand its power.

“I fail to see the usefulness of amendments since they’re continually ignored.”

Another responds: “Indeed. In regard to federalism, Barnett’s propopsed amendment would restate the continuously ignored Tenth Amendment, except that it would legitimize the bogus Incorporation Doctrine — a bit of judicial usurpation that Barnett approves. In other words, where not redundant, it’s largely harmful.”

“I’m confused as to why Barnett’s Section 2 even discusses “acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.” Doesn’t Article I already address this? And don’t the centralists already view secession as inherently unconstitutional? If so, why do they need an amendment saying so?

I also doubt that section 2 would seriously crimp federal regulatory activity. There are tons of FTC justifications for regulating intrastate commerce. I doubt the FTC would surrender just because they’d be violating yet another constitutional provision.

Indeed, Barnett would’ve been better off proposing an amendment banning “regulatory” agencies.