Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[San Lumen]

We can't just throw out the process because you find it inconvenient. it written into law. You can't just ignore it.

Why not, that's what the founders of this country did.

That is completely different scenario. What's the point of having a constitution if you can just ignore it because you find it annoying?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why not, that's what the founders of this country did.

That is completely different scenario. What's the point of having a constitution if you can just ignore it because you find it annoying?

There is nothing different about it. They didn't like the current system, so they killed people until they got their way.

[Punished UMN]

Why not, that's what the founders of this country did.

That is completely different scenario. What's the point of having a constitution if you can just ignore it because you find it annoying?

It isn't completely different, they didn't like the way the country was run so they started a war and killed people to get their way. If anything they were way more extreme, they didn't even have a vote.

[San Lumen]

That is completely different scenario. What's the point of having a constitution if you can just ignore it because you find it annoying?

It isn't completely different, they didn't like the way the country was run so they started a war and killed people to get their way. If anything they were way more extreme, they didn't even have a vote.

what are suggesting the people in these counties do when it doesnt get a vote in committee?

[Punished UMN]

It isn't completely different, they didn't like the way the country was run so they started a war and killed people to get their way. If anything they were way more extreme, they didn't even have a vote.

what are suggesting the people in these counties do when it doesnt get a vote in committee?

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm saying that the harping about having to do things according to the system is just appealing to tradition, it is not, in itself, a good reason to follow it. The only reason this country exists, and why Oregon exists itself, is that people didn't follow the law. These counties have more legitimacy than the founding fathers have since they at least held a damn referendum, our founding fathers just killed people when they didn't get their way.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

Oh I got you now.

Well? For me. State creation should be something that requires effort. A new state after all directly and indirectly affects everybody else (for example; the amount of available federal funds).

Anyway……

Anything anyone does affects everyone else, but that doesn't mean that everyone has an equal say or is equally affected by it. The people who are most affected by how these communities are governed all live in those communities, it's pretty tangential to everyone else, even everyone else in Oregon.

Rational people relocate when they feel their surroundings are uncomfortable. Hence the evolutionary process of natural selection gave us legs and bipedalism. Not to be confused with bipartisanship.

[Thermodolia]

You missed the entire point. Which is that we shouldn’t use the founders as a reason to not do something when they had honestly terrible positions.

Yes they made it insanely hard to change the constitution, no we shouldn’t keep that insanely hard thing just because the founders wanted it that way because the founders also didn’t want slavery to be abolished or women to have the right to vote.

Well? Better it be hard then changing it for the whims of the moment.

If it wasn’t hard, would we have an amendment defining marriage?

I’m not say that it should be super easy but it shouldn’t be insanely hard to do it. Plenty of nations manage to have easier systems.

For example we could have 2/3rds of each house plus a national referendum on the matter which also must reach 2/3rds of the vote.

[Punished UMN]

Anything anyone does affects everyone else, but that doesn't mean that everyone has an equal say or is equally affected by it. The people who are most affected by how these communities are governed all live in those communities, it's pretty tangential to everyone else, even everyone else in Oregon.

Rational people relocate when they feel their surroundings are uncomfortable. Hence the evolutionary process of natural selection gave us legs and bipedalism. Not to be confused with bipartisanship.

You could use the same argument for any form of oppression by government, democratic or otherwise.

[Thermodolia]

You missed the entire point. Which is that we shouldn’t use the founders as a reason to not do something when they had honestly terrible positions.

Yes they made it insanely hard to change the constitution, no we shouldn’t keep that insanely hard thing just because the founders wanted it that way because the founders also didn’t want slavery to be abolished or women to have the right to vote.

If a constitutional convention where held today it would used to erase almost every major feat in civil rights, environmental protection and likely enshrine the Republicans as the governing party via legalized voter suppression.

How are you so sure of that? If that was the case wouldn’t the republicans be completely in charge, everywhere?

Tbh I think that believing that a constitutional convention would lead to less civil rights says more about you than you think it does

[Thermodolia]

I'm responding to "the process has always been this way", that is not a valid reason to keep it that way, it's just an appeal to tradition.

Personally, I would rather not have the current constitution at all. I think I've been pretty clear that my actual leanings are closer to anarcho-communism than to liberal democratic statism.

Oh I got you now.

Well? For me. State creation should be something that requires effort. A new state after all directly and indirectly affects everybody else (for example; the amount of available federal funds).

Anyway……

For me I believe the states should have zero powers outside of what the central government allows them to have and that creating a new state should be very easy as it wouldn’t change anything

[San Lumen]

If a constitutional convention where held today it would used to erase almost every major feat in civil rights, environmental protection and likely enshrine the Republicans as the governing party via legalized voter suppression.

How are you so sure of that? If that was the case wouldn’t the republicans be completely in charge, everywhere?

Tbh I think that believing that a constitutional convention would lead to less civil rights says more about you than you think it does

We haven't had a constitutional convention since 1787. Republicans would almost certainly add a amendment defining marriage but lets not get off topic.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

Well? Better it be hard then changing it for the whims of the moment.

If it wasn’t hard, would we have an amendment defining marriage?

I’m not say that it should be super easy but it shouldn’t be insanely hard to do it. Plenty of nations manage to have easier systems.

For example we could have 2/3rds of each house plus a national referendum on the matter which also must reach 2/3rds of the vote.

In our current state we couldn't get 2/3 to vote for this. We can't get 2/3 for wearing masks during a pandemic of a lethal airborne virus.

[San Lumen]

Well? Better it be hard then changing it for the whims of the moment.

If it wasn’t hard, would we have an amendment defining marriage?

I’m not say that it should be super easy but it shouldn’t be insanely hard to do it. Plenty of nations manage to have easier systems.

For example we could have 2/3rds of each house plus a national referendum on the matter which also must reach 2/3rds of the vote.

There is no precedent for a national referendum and whether such a vote could be held is questionable as there no provision in the constitution for it.

[Thermodolia]

Anything anyone does affects everyone else, but that doesn't mean that everyone has an equal say or is equally affected by it. The people who are most affected by how these communities are governed all live in those communities, it's pretty tangential to everyone else, even everyone else in Oregon.

Rational people relocate when they feel their surroundings are uncomfortable. Hence the evolutionary process of natural selection gave us legs and bipedalism. Not to be confused with bipartisanship.

Again you are so entitled that you don’t understand how expensive it is to actually move. Most people can’t afford to move. It’s not so easy as you make it out to be

[Washington Resistance Army]

Anything anyone does affects everyone else, but that doesn't mean that everyone has an equal say or is equally affected by it. The people who are most affected by how these communities are governed all live in those communities, it's pretty tangential to everyone else, even everyone else in Oregon.

Rational people relocate when they feel their surroundings are uncomfortable. Hence the evolutionary process of natural selection gave us legs and bipedalism. Not to be confused with bipartisanship.

This ignores the fact that most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings and can't relocate. It's shockingly out of touch to just say "lol move".

[Albrenia]

This really feels like one side is arguing that the minority of voters should just be ignored outright and have their wishes denied, while the other side is arguing that the handful of counties should lead a bloody armed coup over having environmental regulation.

[Punished UMN]

This really feels like one side is arguing that the minority of voters should just be ignored outright and have their wishes denied, while the other side is arguing that the handful of counties should lead a bloody armed coup over having environmental regulation.

I'm certainly not arguing that, I'm just saying that the legalism is silly if you actually believe in popular sovereignty and has worrying implications for minority groups in every other country.

[Thermodolia]

How are you so sure of that? If that was the case wouldn’t the republicans be completely in charge, everywhere?

Tbh I think that believing that a constitutional convention would lead to less civil rights says more about you than you think it does

We haven't had a constitutional convention since 1787. Republicans would almost certainly add a amendment defining marriage but lets not get off topic.

But if you think they’d have all that power then why aren’t they controlling Congress or the White House? If you think the republicans would run rampant and go power hungry in a constitutional convention, then why are democrats in power and the republicans aren’t?

Clearly you obviously think less of the democrats if you think the republicans would be able to control everything in a constitutional convention.

Also stop it with the appeal to tradition, its old

[San Lumen]

This really feels like one side is arguing that the minority of voters should just be ignored outright and have their wishes denied, while the other side is arguing that the handful of counties should lead a bloody armed coup over having environmental regulation.

No one is saying they should be ignored but its outright ludicrous to expect a state to give up two thirds of their of land which is what the group behind these referendums ultimate goal is.

[Albrenia]

It would be cool if the Oregon state politicians were like 'oh damn, we better fix this' and worked at finding a solution for the rural people. Sure the rural folks might have to deal with some stuff they don't like in the end, but they certainly deserve to have their concerns dealt with in a matter than doesn't leave a majority of them wanting to leave the state.

Politics in the US isn't exactly trending in a 'lets come together to work this out' direction though, and more towards a split where both sides seem to actively enjoy acting in bad faith towards one another.

[Thermodolia]

I’m not say that it should be super easy but it shouldn’t be insanely hard to do it. Plenty of nations manage to have easier systems.

For example we could have 2/3rds of each house plus a national referendum on the matter which also must reach 2/3rds of the vote.

In our current state we couldn't get 2/3 to vote for this. We can't get 2/3 for wearing masks during a pandemic of a lethal airborne virus.

Well then I guess you don’t have to worry about frivolous amendments then.

I’m not say that it should be super easy but it shouldn’t be insanely hard to do it. Plenty of nations manage to have easier systems.

For example we could have 2/3rds of each house plus a national referendum on the matter which also must reach 2/3rds of the vote.

There is no precedent for a national referendum and whether such a vote could be held is questionable as there no provision in the constitution for it.

Flag on the play! Appeal to tradition! 20 yard penalty, replay 3rd down!

There was no precedent for freeing the slaves yet Lincoln did so. There was no precedent for giving women the vote yet we did. There was no precedent for Loving v Virginia yet the court ruled otherwise.

Claiming there’s no precedent so we can’t do that is absolutely silly and quite frankly unprogressive. Oh we can’t give you rights there’s no precedent! Oh we can’t let you vote there’s no precedent! Oh we can’t attempt to fix the nation, there’s no precedent!!

Also Lumen I’m saying we amend the constitution to make the amendment process less stupid

[Thermodolia]

This really feels like one side is arguing that the minority of voters should just be ignored outright and have their wishes denied, while the other side is arguing that the handful of counties should lead a bloody armed coup over having environmental regulation.

No one is saying they should be ignored but its outright ludicrous to expect a state to give up two thirds of their of land which is what the group behind these referendums ultimate goal is.

I thought land and trees and cows didn’t matter

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

Rational people relocate when they feel their surroundings are uncomfortable. Hence the evolutionary process of natural selection gave us legs and bipedalism. Not to be confused with bipartisanship.

Again you are so entitled that you don’t understand how expensive it is to actually move. Most people can’t afford to move. It’s not so easy as you make it out to be

And again it's your rebelliousness which doesn't comprehend the various expenses of redrawing state lines every generation when 5 - 7% of a state's rural population is unhappy. It's your propose which is far from easy. It's ludicrous on it's face.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Again you are so entitled that you don’t understand how expensive it is to actually move. Most people can’t afford to move. It’s not so easy as you make it out to be

And again it's your rebelliousness which doesn't comprehend the various expenses of redrawing state lines every generation when 5 - 7% of a state's rural population is unhappy. It's your propose which is far from easy. It's ludicrous on it's face.

Surely you can grasp the difference between state and personal economics

[The Lone Alliance]

This really feels like one side is arguing that the minority of voters should just be ignored outright and have their wishes denied, while the other side is arguing that the handful of counties should lead a bloody armed coup over having environmental regulation.

No one is saying they should be ignored but its outright ludicrous to expect a state to give up two thirds of their of land which is what the group behind these referendums ultimate goal is.

Yes you were in fact saying they should be ignored.