"Why Do the Koch Brothers Want a Convention of States?" - CHARLES P. PIERCE
[link:http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14841457/convention-of-states-campaign-secession/|]
But the larger danger is that the idea of disunion, within states and generally throughout the country, has now become not only a viable topic of political discussion, but also a viable political strategy. The whole blue-red thing used to be an easy way to distinguish on television which geographical area voted for what candidate. Then, it became shorthand for all manner of political differences. It was inexact and shallow, but inexact and shallow people found it convenient, so everybody went along with it. Now, though, those divisions are driving policy in a way that they rarely have in the past, and when they have, the policies generally resulted in ghastly consequences.
For example, the portion of the recently passed tax bill involving the deduction of state and local taxes is directly aimed at the (largely blue) states that are willing to pay for a certain quality of life for their citizens through local taxes. Basically, Massachusetts is being penalized for deciding not to be Mississippi. The same dynamic is at work with Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and his newly announced war on decriminalized marijuana, in which Colorado is being penalized for not being Alabama. This latter instance has the added power of federal law enforcement behind it, which (theoretically) puts politicians like Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey at risk. But the use of disunion as a political tool is exemplified best by the campaign to call a constitutional convention of the states under Article V of the present Constitution.
Right now, the people pushing the convention—and we’ll get to them in a minute—have commitments from 28 state legislatures. They need 34 to trigger the Constitution’s provision for a “convention of the states.” Four states are on the verge of voting on the issue now: South Carolina, Kentucky, Montana, and Idaho. (South Carolina has an unfortunate history with the consequences of disunion as a political tactic, which it apparently has been encouraged to forget.) If the convention is called, the disunion that has become a faith in some conservative quarters will run amok. Economic oligarchy will be established in law, and any political check on the powers of business likely will be eviscerated.
As to the former, the Koch Brothers and other aspiring oligarchs are the money behind the movement toward a convention. As to the latter, the whole thing is being sold under the camouflage of a desire to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution—aka The Worst Idea In American Politics. But even the late Antonin Scalia admitted that a convention so called cannot be limited to one topic, and, anyway, a visit to the website of Convention of the States Project, one of the most prominent organizations in favor of the convention, reveals that the convention is a device for profound political sabotage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
They brought this on us. I have no doubt in my mind that they were complicit in allowing this whole Russia bullshit to happen. Shit, those motherfuckers probably financed it.
