Calling For Another Bloody Civil War Is Not Being A Conservative

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Bloody civil wars are entered into by political choice.  That is not a legal question; that is a political question.  I don’t think, and I reject all of you that are so ginned up and believe a bloody civil war is right around the corner.  My God, think about it when you say that.  Why would you even wish that on the people? Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  This is William in North Carolina.  William, you are on the Mike Church Show on Sirius XM.  How are you?

Caller William:  I’m fine.  Listen, I’m pretty sure you’re going to tell me how wrong I am real quick, but I just wanted to say what this gentleman said earlier when you told him he couldn’t kick California out.  I think you might have missed his point from this respect.  I just want to say what I think he was getting at a different way.  If you have ten states out of 50 that have the most population, and most of those people in those ten states think stupid liberalism, why can’t the 40 other states that think correctly, conservatively, kick the ten states out.  Since there’s more of us, we use our own tactics against them, just like they’re using against us.  Why isn’t that a good policy?  If the Constitution works one way, can’t it work the other way?

Mike:  I told him that the Constitution as a compact would say that you could say our agreement has ended and our relationship is hereby severed.

Caller William:  You think the 40 states could get together and say we have decided, using the majority principle of democracy and kick you guys out?

Mike:  William, please, sir, allow me to speak for just a solitary moment, sir.  If the Constitution is viewed correctly and properly as a compact, then a compact is an agreement between consenting parties.  If the states you want to kick out say they don’t want to leave, that they have no desire to be kicked out, you’ve got to have some sort of a divorce proceeding.  Then under what authority and under what legal framework are you then going to escort them or tell them they are hereby severed and removed from your union if it’s not of their choosing?  I didn’t say it couldn’t happen.  I just hadn’t thought about it like that to where you would kick someone out.

I would suspect the way you would do that is have an Article V convention.  In the convention, as it would be a runaway Con Con now, you would have a majority of states.  If states got votes — let’s say they voted like they did in the Federal Convention of 1787.  Every state got one vote.  They could vote among their own quorum.  They could have an individual vote if they had nine delegates.  A 5-4 vote would carry whatever question was being asked.  Let’s say then in the Federal Convention of 2013 there was a motion on the floor to kick New York, California, New Jersey, name your ten states you want out that practice “liberalism.”  If that motion carries a majority of the states, and if that then is the determination and finding of the convention, if you can then send that back to the other states to have it ratified, you run into the question: Do the states we’re trying to vote out, do they get to vote in the ratification process?  If they do and there’s ten of them, they only need to pick off three more and your effort to get rid of them is over.  You have to have 38 states to ratify an amendment.

The other alternative would be we’re not ratifying an amendment; we’re ratifying a new union.  We’re ratifying that those ten states are not invited into our new union.  As soon as three-quarters of our new states say the new union is in effect, then it is in effect in those states that ratified the same.  Anyone else that chooses to ratify can be admitted by a vote for ratification and then a vote in our new congress.  Then you would be able to kick the ten states out.  You’d have to have a convention.  Congress can’t do that.  I can see no way that Congress could do that.  A convention of states convened for that purpose could certainly do that.  Okay, William?

Caller William:  Yes.

Mike:  Does that answer your question?

Caller William:  No, it doesn’t, because it leaves one thing unsettled.  You have 50 percent of the national population completely unhappy with it and they’re not going to put up with it for too much longer.  You’re going to end up with a bloody civil war at some point.  We’re going to have to find a solution some other way, I think, or it’s going to be the end of it all.

Mike:  Bloody civil wars are entered into by political choice.  That is not a legal question; that is a political question.  I don’t think, and I reject all of you that are so ginned up and believe a bloody civil war is right around the corner.  My God, think about it when you say that.  Why would you even wish that on the people?  We’ve had 50/50 division for 230 years.  Do you people read?  Do you read?  Do you listen, sir?  The Constitution was barely ratified in the larger states that had to ratify it.  Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, they didn’t want to ratify.  As a matter of fact, had New York and Virginia had telegraph communication, it wouldn’t have been ratified.  The whole thing would have went up in smoke.  Was there a huge, lumbering, happy, felicitous majority that couldn’t wait to make new common cause under the Constitution at that time?  No.  There was a schism.  There was a split between federalists and republicans, or between nationalists and actual federalists.

Why people always want to turn to bloody civil war as an alternative, you solve nothing with wars other than killing people and destroying property.  Why is that even an option?  We are so militarized.  The longing for, it seems, for acts of violence to end this, number one, that is not a conservative point of view.  Number two, unless you are being threatened with violence and it is the only and final recourse that you have, that would not even be something you would be discussing, yet it keeps coming up.  [mocking] “I think there’s gonna be a bloody civil war” all because Obama got elected.  When Bush was sending your sons to die in fruitless wars of convenience under deceitful pretenses and practices, there was no agitation for this bloody civil war.  There were people screaming and hollering like Keith Olbermann and what have you.  I don’t know that Olbermann was screaming about bloody civil wars.  Maybe he was and I missed it.  This isn’t a new thing.  Government has been attacking and oppressive for a very long time, I’d say going all the way back to certainly the Jackson administration and beyond.

End Mike Church Show Transcript