Mayor Quimby: Also it has been brought to my attention that a number of you are stroking guns.
Yeah, and some people think it’s not, because there’s too much free speech, doesn’t say that America is a Christian nation, and doesn’t put Teh Gheys in their proper place: in the asylums.
I think a situation which would probably create more broad-based support for changes would be one in which the executive branch took on legislative functions because Congress wouldn’t pass the bills he wanted. If Democrats had won the White House again and followed through on promises to expand the reach of executive orders, that might have provoked a convention for the purpose of more narrowly defining and limiting the executive branch’s powers. I mean, if Republicans control 37 states plus Congress it’s hard to argue that the President should be able to exercise more than the customary power. It’s she who should be deferring to the Congress and states in that situation. And if she didn’t, well, the states and Congress have the ability to bring her and future Presidents to heel.
This is all correct, but basically irrelevant. What the 1787 convention did was say, we are proposing abolishing the Articles of Confederation and replacing the confederation they created by a new union. As soon as 9 states join that union it is in force and if the other four wish to continue the old one, we will get on with it without them.
If this happened it would be a secession from the union. The Civil War seemed to settle the notion that states have no right to secede. But it is arguable that you could secede; just don’t start a war by firing on a resupply vessel to a military base.
So long as it is presented as an amendment or amendments to the current constitution, it certainly would require ratification by 38 states.