Given the Supreme Court's dismissal of Texas v Pennsylvania, it looks like the Cathedral is poised to take back full control, and the Constitution is just an interesting relic on some paper.
That in mind, I figure it's high time I started to share around something I've been working on for a while: I wrote and annotated a significant re-write of the US Constitution.
Here's the plan I propose: All the states that supported the Texas complaint should stop recognizing the DC Establishment as any sort of legitimate government, and should form a new government of the US under this updated constitution. Let any part of one of the other states set up a replacement government and rejoin as states, but leave the cancer cities like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles out of the deal. Leave them behind to collapse in their own failure, but save as much of America as we can from their mistakes, and preserve as much of the military and economic power as we can, so that China and its allies don't get a chance to take over.
It's a hard road, and there are a lot of people to convince that it's better to leave the Washington establishment behind, but balkanization has major risks to national security, as well as economic costs. This path preserves that security and many of the healthy sectors of the US economy, leaves behind the absurd government overreach that the Cathedral has built up, and maintains the American identity that many people consider to be core to their life.
Hoping to get feedback on this plan, and the changes to the Constitution, from you guys here first, before I start spreading it around to more official channels.
What's wrong with more layers? With respect, I want it to be really hard for New York to tell my state how to conduct its affairs. My neighbors have more interest in my affairs than my county, than my state, than the surrounding states, than my nation. Why shouldn't the structure of the government reflect that?
Things like medication manufactured in one state and sold in another would still under your Constitution fall under cross-border commerce subject to Federal authority. The FDA for example predates Wickard v Filburn by 5 years, and prior to its creation the USDA regulated interstate trade of medications for 30 years. The USDA could still exist for the same reason: because most food production is in a handful of states and results in cross-border commerce.
More layers means that it's harder for your own opinions to filter up to a debate that's already happening on the national stage. I'm not super opposed to the idea, I'm just concerned that the tradeoff isn't worth it.
I absolutely agree that some New Yorkers have no business running your life; I'm hoping the 2/3 majority required for national bills would keep that at bay, but you might be right that more layers would make it meaningfully more difficult.
Fair point on the Interstate drug sales. I can see good value in adding a regional layer and putting that sort of administration at that level. There would still be inter-regional trade, but maybe since there'd be less of it, there'd be a weaker case for regulation on it.