Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kathryn13 t1_itq4r8w wrote

This is a ballot question every ten years. To me, it's meaningful this year because last year our majority governing body in this state moved forward out of committee a proposal to secede from the US.

If you vote yes to holding a constitutional convention, it opens the door to that same leadership pushing that agenda at a convention. That's bad news is you like being an American.

If you vote no to holding a constitutional convention, that door will not be opened.

edit: misspelling.

16

nuhusky26 t1_itq93s7 wrote

My understanding is if a convention there would be another vote at the next election to send delegates too. From seacoast online paper

So, what happens if voters decide they want a constitutional convention this time around? In that case, voters would then be tasked with choosing delegates to the convention at the next election, similar to the process for choosing state representatives. Then, if three-fifths of those delegates agree on changes to the state constitution, the final changes would be put before voters at the next biennial election.

Considering the effort it takes to hold a constitutional convention, you may be wondering why anyone would want to. There are a variety of proposed constitutional amendments that have gained traction in recent years, including a constitutional ban on income/sales taxes, changes to legislator compensation (currently $100 a year plus mileage), a constitutional right to an abortion, and more.

6

wakko666 t1_itqlbil wrote

>To me, it's meaningful this year because last year our majority governing body in this state moved forward out of committee a proposal to succeed from the US.

*Secede

Any secession efforts are going to run squarely up against the SCOTUS decision in Texas v. White. It's worth reading the full decision. But, the tl;dr on that case is it's one of the key post-Civil War decisions that ruled on events that happened during the war.

The main question the case answers is whether US Courts have jurisdiction to rule on events that happened while southern states were supposedly no longer a part of the United States. SCOTUS decided in that case, essentially, that any state that joins the USA can't leave the USA without going to war with the rest of the USA. They decided that case on the basis that, because the Confederacy lost the war, they never _actually_ established a new nation and remained a part of the United States throughout the time that the war lasted.

So, anybody that talks about states seceding is talking about going to war with the rest of the states and the federal government. After the events of Jan 6, I don't think anybody should take such things lightly.

5

cereeves t1_itqo8ep wrote

This is the thing I think a lot of the pro-secession crowd seems to forget. The United States dealt with the question of secession once before, and whether or not you like the answer, it was determined that secession is not allowed unless you overcome the might of the military, the Federal government, and the rest of the States.

6

wakko666 t1_itqslcs wrote

Exactly.

It's funny how so many of those folks don't bother to learn any parts of this nation's history that happened after 1790.

It's almost like they're trying to return to a time when it was acceptable for certain humans to only count as three-fifths of a citizen.

7

wegandi t1_itqsfv7 wrote

Secession is the ultimate retraction of the consent of the governed. Without a mechanism of divorce the whole idea of social contract theory implodes on itself, nevermind the contradictory nature (secession from Britain = yup, secession from US = never....theres no logical explanation here).

5

wakko666 t1_itrgmic wrote

Thank you for admitting that, even after citing the relevant SCOTUS ruling, you 1) haven't bothered to read it and 2) you've decided that your ignorant ahistorical opinion is somehow more correct.

Shut up until you can actually be bothered to educate yourself. Nobody cares what ignorant morons have to say. You've clearly confused having thoughts with knowledge.

2

kathryn13 t1_itqn3hj wrote

Good gravy. I can't believe I didn't catch that spelling mistake. Thanks.

2