'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration (from British newspaper)

[Smokin Joe]

No one is equating the practice of owning human beings, an abhorrent practice that has been with us since the beginning of human history and not limited to the Confederate States, to today's slavery to national government. The IRS alone is reason enough to make the analogy.

Morally, I object to the concept of one person owning another. Even that feeling between parent and child leads to rebellion, despite the generally benevolent relationship.

But I would be remiss to not point out that Harriet Beecher Stowe, an Abolitionist, wrote a well crafted propaganda novel, which in the fashion of its day engaged the subject of slavery with hyperbole. To be sure, I have little doubt that such incidents occurred as portrayed in that book, but I must seriously question how widespread and common those were. To presume all slaves were mistreated, despite their bondage, is to fall victim to the propaganda and hyperbole of the day, driven by a specific political agenda.

I'm not an apologist, just a realist. The mistreatment of a significant investment in the means of production would be counterproductive.

[Smokin Joe]

One must go farther afield, am afraid.

Most countries undertake other mechanisms to cut a deficit.  One is inflation.  Countries can create more currency to cheapen it.   Making a million dollars borrowed years ago now worth due to inflation one-tenth that amount makes perfect economic sense to a country in debt, doesn't it?

The other is to rescheduling of debt.  Many simply say they cannot pay and then agree to repay pennies on the dollar.  Think Obama's agreement to pay pennies to GM's bondholders.

While inflating the currency can reduce real value debt, it impoverishes all who have held assets or who are reliant on funds saved prior to the inflation.

Besides, I'm not sure how well that would go over with the current Reserve Currency, considering how much is held by other countries.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

While inflating the currency can reduce real value debt, it impoverishes all who have held assets or who are reliant on funds saved prior to the inflation.

Do you really care if it is a foreign entity who holds the debt?

[Smokin Joe]

Do you really care if it is a foreign entity who holds the debt?

I think the Chinese would peg their currency to Gold (which China has been buying for well over a decade), and the dollar would lose reserve currency status. The fall in value worldwide would mean oil prices in dollars would jump significantly, as would any other goods we import, from produce to metals and ores to any finished goods. The effects on any American who had savings would be devastating as their life's savings plummeted in purchasing power.

Yes, it matters.

[Sanguine]

There are two ways to eliminate a deficit, just like any budget shortfall. One is to cut spending. The other is to increase revenue. For Congress, that would mean either they take a pay cut, or we get a tax increase, and the latter could be tacked onto anything from fuel to the various 'sin taxes' (where one smaller group bears the brunt of the expense) to even a tariff on goods. The bottom line is that no matter how they choose to raise that revenue, we all pay for it.

No way they will pass on a paycheck and the perks of office. If you require them to balance the budget, it will be the one Constitutional Obligation they will fulfill, and they will tax us mercilessly to accomplish it before they cut a dime in spending, especially if they are eligible for re-election.

You are correct in that "they" won't pass it.  It will be "we" who have to pass it.

And, Joe, I'm really trying  to understand.  You keep trying to poke holes in this idea, but you aren't proposing anything else.  Like I've said before, doing nothing is not an option.

[thackney]

We are trying to talk about secession and whether anyone has a right to invoke it, which is the topic of the thread.

Slaves on Plantations has nothing to do with this topic.

[wolfcreek]

Slaves on Plantations has nothing to do with this topic.

Same reason then as it is today...government tyranny.

[MACVSOG68]

Slaves on Plantations has nothing to do with this topic.

It's the reason given by some here for a new secession by Texas--the we are just slaves on the plantation.  I didn't say it, but once said does demand some perspective by reference to the only other attempt at secession.  The topic is secession and its moral and/or legal rationale and path.   And should someone do it here again, once again I will refute it. While much farther afield, morphing into debt, deficit and inflation may not be related but is somewhat less inflammatory.   ^-^

[Sanguine]

It's the reason given by some here for a new secession by Texas--the we are just slaves on the plantation.  I didn't say it, but once said does demand some perspective by reference to the only other attempt at secession.  The topic is secession and its moral and/or legal rationale and path.   And should someone do it here again, once again I will refute it. While much farther afield, morphing into debt, deficit and inflation may not be related but is somewhat less inflammatory.   ^-^

In all fairness, Mac, that was 13-14 pages into the discussion.

[goatprairie]

Morally, I object to the concept of one person owning another. Even that feeling between parent and child leads to rebellion, despite the generally benevolent relationship.

But I would be remiss to not point out that Harriet Beecher Stowe, an Abolitionist, wrote a well crafted propaganda novel, which in the fashion of its day engaged the subject of slavery with hyperbole. To be sure, I have little doubt that such incidents occurred as portrayed in that book, but I must seriously question how widespread and common those were. To presume all slaves were mistreated, despite their bondage, is to fall victim to the propaganda and hyperbole of the day, driven by a specific political agenda.

I'm not an apologist, just a realist. The mistreatment of a significant investment in the means of production would be counterproductive.

By definition being a slave is being mistreated. If you are considered someone else's property, you are being mistreated.

[Smokin Joe]

You are correct in that "they" won't pass it.  It will be "we" who have to pass it.

And, Joe, I'm really trying  to understand.  You keep trying to poke holes in this idea, but you aren't proposing anything else.  Like I've said before, doing nothing is not an option.

My, my, you keep pushing me toward a corner.

Here it is:

You either fix it, or you scrap it and build back what was supposed to be there. To advocate overthrow of what is there would be seditious and I won't do that, especially here.

While I believe the core of the Republic was solid, with the exception of the slavery issue, it is some of the add-ons past the first ten Amendments which are the problem. You will have one hell of a hard time eliminating 150 years plus worth of statutory and interpretative add-ons with a few paragraphs. In fact, it would be miraculous if the concepts originally intended could be returned to in one or two generations, partly because of the nature of those add-ons, most notably Social Security, but interpretations of the Commerce Clause and "general welfare" and others.

There are, as I have said, herds of sacred cows which have been generated as a result. Entire Cabinet level Departments and all their programs, and the grant money from those programs, and hundreds of thousands of cushy government jobs will not be relinquished without a fight.

I am trying to take a realistic view of the battlefield, here. Just diddy-bopping in will get you slaughtered, politically, and the whole idea of an Article V Convention of States will be done for another hundred years or more.

If you think Article V is the answer, then go ahead, but know the 'battlespace', know what you are really up against. Keep in mind that you aren't just fighting over principle, but for those you will be fighting against, this is worth trillions of dollars a year, in wages, benefits, grants, contracts, and the like. They will not go quietly into that night.

Out of the TEA Party movement we got what, less than ten Congress people who would fight the good fight even after the dirty tricks, etc., and only a fraction of those kept the faith in the face of peer pressure, 'beltway fever' and K-Street. It is unlikely we will remove enough of the quislings from the Congress through the electoral process in time to do much good.

As for more Amendments, consider that the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS rewrote a law to call a fee the Congress had insisted was a "penalty" a "tax"--which then even, should have voided the law because that revenue measure (a tax) originated not in the House of Representatives, but the Senate, and that is proscribed by the Constitution, as is the act of writing or rewriting legislation denied the Court. Despite that 'double whammy', the law was upheld, and our health care system is a wreck and getting worse. My doctor quit, and my insurance carrier with whom I had health insurance for over twenty years stopped writing health insurance policies. Twice was the Constitution violated, by the very people who are supposed to uphold it (actually, they all are--they took an oath to do so)

At that point, hypothetically speaking, the solution becomes a question of how much do you break before you rebuild, or do you tear it down to bedrock, pick up that original document (having already hashed out what it was supposed to mean and what does not fit), add in the few changes which worked, drop a couple which are particularly onerous (16th and 17th Amendments), and run with it, taking time only to clarify the language. Keep in mind, this is a process even more dangerous in even theory, because once the dogs of war are unleashed, no telling who they will bite. It would be all the excuse needed for an already overbearing government to go full totalitarian. At any rate, win, lose, or draw, it would be messy and give our enemies ample opportunity for mischief, not to mention our 'friends'.
 
Where do you get the people with the education and the integrity to put things aright? to keep them that way?--likely not from the most revered institutions of higher learning which have been seriously, if not completely compromised in their interpretation of the words "Right" and "fair", just for starters. Those currently in the system have become inured to those concepts for the most part, and their resignations would be called for. Consider the mayhem the Clintons left (and the things they didn't leave behind) when they vacated the White House, and multiply that by a few hundred thousand disgruntled former employees, many of whom were issued sidearms and body armour.

Oh, and pass out pink slips to the hundreds of thousands of former Federal Employees who worked for or were funded by the now defunct departments of Education, the EPA (necessary function rolled into interior) and all the other agencies which make up the alphabet soup we call the 'government'. Better cut a new deal with the cartel known as the Federal Reserve, too, because we're in pretty deep. (a little more than GDP).

So, I'm not sure there is a solution, which is why I am not against an Article V Convention of States per se. I am, however full of caution, and there are reasons here I have attempted to articulate for that caution. Sun Tsu said you (paraphrasing) have to know the enemy and yourself if you are to be likely to have victory, and I'm probing the potential problems. There are many, not insurmountable, but significant.

First, they won't go by the rules they had, why go by new ones?

Second, will the process be hijacked and have we reached the critical mass of parasites which will guarantee the outcome is more Socialist than intended?

Third, remember, there are not only the parasites, but the employees, and then every employee, investor, business, and person who has a stake in the contracts let and grant money distributed who will fight against this, too. I am reminded that where I grew up 50 miles from DC, the government is seen as an employer, a provider of contracts and business, a consumer of supplies, whereas out west, it is seen not as a family pet/watchdog/sheepdog, but as a ravening wolf come to eat our substance. Not all the taxpayers will fight to rein in the very spending which makes them a living in every profession and trade, doing work for the government, despite the taxes they may pay or rules they have become inured to.

Fourth: Understand that the American People will have to be, by and large reeducated as to not only what Liberty is, but to learn to like the self actualization that comes with it, and to bear the responsibility that walks hand in hand with freedom. Many will not go down that road. They prefer having their decisions made for them, and will fight being pulled form that comfort zone.

There is more than just getting a Convention involved, you have to have people in all the states (well, 38, anyway) who will push to ratify the measures you pass, and that means having a populace which is ready on a widespread basis to accept or desire those changes. With every onerous edict from Washington D.C. we get closer, as more people get frustrated, but timing will be important.

Fifth, on timing: If Trump gets elected,  expect complacency from his supporters, who will lull into the somnolence that accompanies electing a "champion" to set things right. I do not share their faith, but that post election 100 days lets a lot get by an otherwise attentive populace, and if he pushed for measures and rulemakings which conservatives found onerous, after all, there is a chance they would meet with minimal resistance unless the Democrats sweep the Congress while those who would get over their normalcy bias realize that things aren't what they had assumed they would be. This would be a period of low enthusiasm for such a convention.

If Hillary gets in, expect conservatives to be more willing to fight because her first 100 days would have that part of the electorate ready to do battle in the political space at a minimum.

So I still haven't given you an answer, but I didn't tie the Gordian Knot, and am restrained from suggesting the stroke to undo it by prudence and the desire to not have Federal Agents knocking at my door.

[Smokin Joe]

By definition being a slave is being mistreated. If you are considered someone else's property, you are being mistreated.

Permit me to rephrase that, then. I stated my objection to the idea of someone being owned by someone else.

There were slaves which were well fed, who received medical care every bit as good as their owners, who had decent housing and adequate, if not necessarily fashionable clothing to protect them from the elements. They were not beaten, whipped, or otherwise subjected to physical abuse. They worked alongside their owners in the field doing essentially the same tasks. Some were even educated to read and write or do math, and many were taught trades. Most were not engaged in dangerous work, and the majority did not wear chains as a rule.

Beyond being someone else's property, they were not abused, and that was my point.

[HoustonSam]

It's the reason given by some here for a new secession by Texas--the we are just slaves on the plantation.  I didn't say it, but once said does demand some perspective by reference to the only other attempt at secession.  The topic is secession and its moral and/or legal rationale and path.   And should someone do it here again, once again I will refute it. While much farther afield, morphing into debt, deficit and inflation may not be related but is somewhat less inflammatory.   ^-^

But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery.  In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery.  The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.

Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.

The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have  asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government.  Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.

[Sanguine]

But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery.  In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery.  The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.

Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.

The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have  asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government.  Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.

Beautifully said!

[MACVSOG68]

But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery.  In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery.  The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.

Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.

The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have  asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government.  Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.

The analogy was intended as a comparison.  And once done, opens up the issue of slavery being the central focus of the earlier attempt to break-away.  If it's okay to use that analogy, it's okay to argue with it.  In any case, I don't see either the claim or the argument as departing from the point of the thread.  When one talks about slavery and the plantation in terms of today's issues, one will be challenged.  It's no different from the use of Hitler today to describe every mainstream political figure, by both sides of the political spectrum. 

[austingirl]

But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery.  In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery.  The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.

Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.

The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have  asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government.  Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.

Well done, sir!

[MACVSOG68]

In all fairness, Mac, that was 13-14 pages into the discussion.

Actually not Sanguine.  It was first brought up by the original poster who I presume understood what he wanted out of the thread.  And it was mentioned several times before I challenged the "plantation" assertion.  And I understand the poster who decided my post was a thread hijack, since he's made it clear which side of that issue he resides on.  He even mentioned the 1700s at one point.  And yet if I hijacked the thread by a response, how about all the discussions about communists and various presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt?  How about all the posts concerning various amendments that might be considered by a CoS?  What does a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment have to do with secession?  I understand that where you stand depends on where you sit, and who defends whom on issues and threads like this. 

[Sanguine]

Actually not Sanguine.  It was first brought up by the original poster who I presume understood what he wanted out of the thread.  And it was mentioned several times before I challenged the "plantation" assertion.  And I understand the poster who decided my post was a thread hijack, since he's made it clear which side of that issue he resides on.  He even mentioned the 1700s at one point.  And yet if I hijacked the thread by a response, how about all the discussions about communists and various presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt?  How about all the posts concerning various amendments that might be considered by a CoS?  What does a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment have to do with secession?  I understand that where you stand depends on where you sit, and who defends whom on issues and threads like this.

I will defer to you on this one.  My eyes glazed over pages ago and I must have missed it.

[MACVSOG68]

I will defer to you on this one.  My eyes glazed over pages ago and I must have missed it.

Eye glazing is a common outcome of disagreeing with me on anything...    

[HoustonSam]

The analogy was intended as a comparison.  And once done, opens up the issue of slavery being the central focus of the earlier attempt to break-away.

I simply disagree here.  The motivation of the Confederates has no bearing on current advocacy for secession.  No one is recommending that the original secession ordinances or the Confederate Constitution be dusted off and re-implemented.  One could just as credibly argue that the US participation in WWII was morally wrong because the Indian wars were wrong.

If it's okay to use that analogy, it's okay to argue with it.

Absolutely, and you have done so very effectively by outlining the ways in which freedom is more expansive in the US today than in the past, i.e. arguing that we are not enslaved, and by asking for contrary evidence.  This is a spot-on and powerful argument on your part.  But the anti-secession argument on the grounds of Confederate slavery simply misses the point, and furthermore is fallacious in itself.  The first Jewish person to be a Cabinet-level official in an American government was Judah P. Benjamin, who served in the Davis cabinet.  If secession today is wrong because the first secessionists were defending slavery, then is it also wrong to have a Jewish person in the cabinet today, because the first Jewish cabinet member in America was defending slavery?

In any case, I don't see either the claim or the argument as departing from the point of the thread.  When one talks about slavery and the plantation in terms of today's issues, one will be challenged.  It's no different from the use of Hitler today to describe every mainstream political figure, by both sides of the political spectrum.

There is certainly no valid comparison of the life of an American today to the life of a plantation slave, nor is there any valid comparison of any mainstream US politician today to Hitler.  Neither equation can be helpful to us in reaching meaningful consensus.  For that reason, I'm pretty sure that you would not oppose US Dept of Transportation expenditure for the Interstate Highway system on the grounds that the interstates were modeled after Hitler's autobahn.  Highway expenditures should be considered on their own merits, without regard to the morals of those who built the first such highway.  Similarly, a proposed secession should be considered on its own merits, without regard to the morals of those who attempted the first such secession.

Though I'm disagreeing with you here Mac, I continue to admire your erudition, patriotism, and good faith.  Iron sharpens iron.

[MACVSOG68]

I simply disagree here.  The motivation of the Confederates has no bearing on current advocacy for secession.  No one is recommending that the original secession ordinances or the Confederate Constitution be dusted off and re-implemented.  One could just as credibly argue that the US participation in WWII was morally wrong because the Indian wars were wrong.

Absolutely, and you have done so very effectively by outlining the ways in which freedom is more expansive in the US today than in the past, i.e. arguing that we are not enslaved, and by asking for contrary evidence.  This is a spot-on and powerful argument on your part.  But the anti-secession argument on the grounds of Confederate slavery simply misses the point, and furthermore is fallacious in itself.  The first Jewish person to be a Cabinet-level official in an American government was Judah P. Benjamin, who served in the Davis cabinet.  If secession today is wrong because the first secessionists were defending slavery, then is it also wrong to have a Jewish person in the cabinet today, because the first Jewish cabinet member in America was defending slavery?

There is certainly no valid comparison of the life of an American today to the life of a plantation slave, nor is there any valid comparison of any mainstream US politician today to Hitler.  Neither equation can be helpful to us in reaching meaningful consensus.  For that reason, I'm pretty sure that you would not oppose US Dept of Transportation expenditure for the Interstate Highway system on the grounds that the interstates were modeled after Hitler's autobahn.  Highway expenditures should be considered on their own merits, without regard to the morals of those who built the first such highway.  Similarly, a proposed secession should be considered on its own merits, without regard to the morals of those who attempted the first such secession.

Though I'm disagreeing with you here Mac, I continue to admire your erudition, patriotism, and good faith.  Iron sharpens iron.

@HoustonSam, you continue to be a truly quality member here.  Always nice to have someone disagree with you without calling you demented and asking God to forgive your ignorance.  Anyway, I agree there is simply no comparison, and I also agree that the slavery articles would not be put into any constitution in the Western world, let alone a break-away state.  Yet some here feeling that term adequate actually tried to make comparisons between the slavery that existed here prior to 1865, and what we are going through here today in the US. 

Some supporting secession have spent many keystrokes explaining why in their opinion the South seceded, and how money was the principal end, so the linkage to the past is inescapable on multiple levels, and is only compounded when those who support the move continue to make comparisons.  Why even use the term?  Has it changed in context, or is it used to emphasize how truly bad off we are?  When someone uses the Hitler analogy in the current political debates, are they trying to say that it no longer carries the mantle of horror it once did?  Should the descendants of those who suffered under those abominations simply shrug and say, well they don't mean what they once did...because...?

Discussing secession is not an easy or pure topic without reference to the first attempt.  Once opened up, it's hard to keep the discussion based solely on today's issues and legalities.  That goes for both sides of this debate.

Anyway, enjoy the back and forth.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Actually not Sanguine.  It was first brought up by the original poster who I presume understood what he wanted out of the thread.

Your comment on one's eye-glazing over is a reality when you make a blatant lie like that.

Show me where I mentioned plantations or slavery prior to you.  I only mentioned it as a direct response to your mentioning.  Trying to rewrite history?

And the condescending behavior is not very helpful to let anyone really be persuaded by your remarks.

[Smokin Joe]

I simply disagree here.  The motivation of the Confederates has no bearing on current advocacy for secession.  No one is recommending that the original secession ordinances or the Confederate Constitution be dusted off and re-implemented. 

If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.

Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.

That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.

[HoustonSam]

If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.

Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.

That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.

Well stated Joe.  For whatever it's worth, I agree in whole.

[Sanguine]

If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.

Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.

That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.

Yes, very well said!