The GOP candidate had said last week that states could secede if they felt the need to do so.

Nikki Haley, fresh off her Civil War history refresher on this week’s Saturday Night Live, appeared to remember what the Constitution allowed when it comes to state secession: nothing.

Haley again walked back her comments saying states could choose if they wanted to secede from the U.S., telling CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that she didn’t believe the Constitution afforded them that right. It came days after she told radio host Charlamagne tha God that states like Texas could “make the decisions that their people want to make.”

“According to the Constitution, they can’t,” Haley told CNN. “What I think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about that for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that.”

The GOP presidential candidate then tried to pivot to why Texas would consider such an option, citing Gov. Greg Abbott’s frustration with the Biden administration’s handling of the Southern border and the state’s desire to protect itself.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I am not against an amendment to reverse Citizens United. (let’s do another one for Supreme Court Term Limits while we’re at it). All our prior amendments have been ratified without a convention.

    My issue with an Article V Constitutional Convention is that the only one we ever had was the one that gave us the entire Constitution, before the article even existed. There are no limits on what the convention could do – and the last one tore up the Articles of Confederation and rewrote it all. Some people think that Congress might put limits on what the Convention can discuss, but it’s totally untested.

    It’s not even settled how the voting would take place. If the Convention decides to have each state have one vote, then it pretty much guaranteed that the Conservative minority in the country would be writing the whole thing. We will even see problems if it’s weighted more like the Electoral College is right now. One thing that’s guaranteed is that, since it’s the smaller conservative states wanting it, they will come up with rules that favor them.

    Any output of the convention would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. That’s really the only check against the convention going totally off the rails.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      3/4ths ratification rule is the safeguard, and why we could be reasonably assured of a narrow scope if the convention is held. It’s also a 2/3 requirement to even call the convention to begin with.

      You’re right that this is effectively unprecedented, but so are a great many modern day political developments in the US. If the outcome means ending the corruption resulting from the corporate stranglehold on our politicians, then I say try it. The left might be surprised to find allies on the right in this regard…if you listen to what MAGA folks think, often their motivations lie in being consistently failed by their government since the 70s. They believe in the promise of America, and are willing to try increasingly desperate measures to bring it to fruition. If both sides can agree that citizens united is the problem, then meaningful reform becomes increasingly possible, if not probable. The trick is overcoming the sleight of hand played by media and political pundits, on both sides, frankly.

      The alternative to confronting the fierce urgency of now, means maintaining the status quo. A system in which normal Americans have no representation at all, and where America consistently costs more for far worse outcomes across virtually all aspects of life compared to other western peers. It’s unacceptable.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        We don’t need a convention to make an amendment to overturn Citizens United. But Conservative groups have been actively gaming out how to take control of a constitutional convention like this and rewrite the whole thing.

        They’ve been planning this for years. There are already 28 Conservative states who passed resolutions calling for one, in spite of there being no established rules so far. Only 6 more are needed. And if it happens, they don’t intend to play fair. If you’re pissed about how Mitch McConnell engineered a conservative Supreme Court that doesn’t reflect the views of the majority in the country, just wait until he gets to rewrite the Constitution.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Respectfully, I insist we do need a convention to pass that amendment.

          99% of Congress is addicted to this very legal bribe money. How are you going to convince them to amend the constitution to take that away? Consider how Pelosi laughs in the face of anyone inquiring about the STOCK act, as indication of the levels of greed and corruption we’re dealing with here. They won’t do it of their own volition, and they sure as hell won’t listen to the voters. The states must force the issue.