Shnercropolis wrote:Obamacult wrote:
We wouldn't be 'splitting up' the union -- indeed, the Constitution wouldn't change one bit.
The only difference is that the federal government would no longer mismanage and bankrupt education, health care, retirement, transportation, railways, etc. that represent over $100 trillion in unfunded debt that will soon bankrupt the nation.
Hence, the states and society managed fine from 1865 to 1933 without the federal government sticking its inefficient, wasteful and corrupt nose into economic issues best managed at the state level or by the citizen.
Tell me how you think California would work without federal aid?
Or right, it would be a completely bankrupt ruin of a state. No doubt other states would suffer similarly.
Also, the constitution guarantees that the federal government exists. That is un-amendable without voiding the entire constitution.
(on a side note, railways are privately owned)
Amtrak is not privately owned and it is the single rail service that is most wasteful, inefficient and corrupt. More importantly, despite losing money hand over fist for decades -- it is very difficult, if not impossible, to free up these wasted resources for more productive uses in society thanks to government.
If California went bankrupt, then the debt would be restructured or forgiven. However, those responsible for running up the debt (the politicians, bureaucrats, their cronies in the private sector and the creditors) would be fauqed.
And yes, the Constitution would remain as it is under the framework that I have outlined. Essentially no change is necessary, just that the federal government surrender its wasteful, inefficient and corrupt management and regulation of many sectors of the economy to the states or the individual citizen, including but not limited to health care, retirement, education, housing, transportation, etc.