In Part 1, I explained the potential problems with Article V of the Convention of States. It’s a never-before-seen method of amending a document in the United States Constitution, and it’s fraught with problems and the possibility of a “runaway convention” that could result in an entirely new constitution written by Republicans.
In this second part, I want to discuss three possible strategies for protecting clean technology in the event of such a convention. To implement these strategies, as described in Part 1, a coalition of representatives from blue states, purple states, and possibly light-red states will need to work together.
Cutting Strategy (Damage Control)
One obvious strategy is for the opposition coalition to simply engage in damage control. This will require the least number of states, but still a good chance that the worst will not happen.
For this, the coalition must agree on certain red lines before the convention. These red lines should be drawn mostly on what light blue, purple and light red states can agree on. Red lines will certainly allow things to happen that deep blue progressives don’t like at all, but it will help prevent total defeat and give deep blue states a vote in the process.
Possible things that would cross that red line would be a complete loss of all environmental regulatory power, a complete repeal of Wickard v Filburn (a 1942 case that greatly expanded federal power), or any amendment that would tilt the board in favor of fossil fuels.
Obviously, this will lead to other red lines beyond environmental issues, but it would take a huge series of articles to consider all these possible issues. There is a possibility of trading within the opposition on these issues to protect the environment. How this all works out will depend a lot on which states can be brought into opposition and who will side with the red states.
Horse Trading Strategy
Another method that a coalition of purple and blue states can use to protect their interests at a convention is to decide what is most important and trade for what is not important to them.
This strategy will likely drive deep-blue progressives the craziest, but it could result in more protections for some of the things deep-blue people really care about. For example, allowing red states to pollute more in exchange for stronger protections for blue states’ environmental policies might be a tradeoff Republicans would accept. It’s obviously not ideal, but the states’ rights part of this debate will win over more Republicans.
Horse-trading can also occur on issues that could become difficult within the opposition coalition. For example, a clear gun trade-off for the Second Amendment in exchange for allowing climate change regulation at the federal level (NYSRPA v Bruen has already done so, whether some of us want to see it or not) would compel Republicans. fight each other on these two issues and split the majority.
As with any loss control strategy, which horses can be traded will depend on who is in the opposition coalition and how large that coalition is. A larger coalition would require diluting the opposition and risk losing the bluest states, while a staunch opposition would risk losing purple states.
It will also depend on representatives from red states. If there were more delegates favoring one conservative issue over another, the opposition could control that aspect of the convention by throwing right-wing Republican factions. It will take a lot of research and speed to make that happen.
National Divorce or Separation Strategy
If things look too bleak heading into the convention, blue states may have no choice but to use the convention to gain more autonomy or outright secede from the mass of red states. This would be a truly dire situation, but this strategy is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Like a real divorce, the details of issues like parenting are where the hassle and disagreements abound.
In a way, that’s what the Republicans did with the convention, so it makes sense to think about making it a divorce everyone can live with instead of a murder-suicide divorce for the states that make up the United States.
In a sense, this is a variant of the horse-trading strategy, as the opposition coalition will give the red states much of what they want, but only if the blue states are not forced to go along with it. It will also work within a coalition, allowing purple states to defend their blue neighbors without being affected by the outcome themselves.
Like I said before, it’s not either or nothing. National separation can take the form of dissident states becoming semi-autonomous states, becoming independent countries in free association with the United States (several Pacific islands already do), or having an orderly process of secession for states. I don’t want to stay in the union at all (and the process for contracts comes into effect after exiting).
How well any of these arrangements work will obviously depend on the details, particularly the fate of people who don’t want to live in an independent California or Texas. There are still questions about travel if any states in the union or any withdrawing states are landlocked (could neutral zone corridors on interstate highways solve that?). What about tax revenues?
The larger, international question will depend on how the North American continent can readjust in the event of a peaceful US dissolution or weakening of its association. Would rural Canada want to join conservatives in the US? Would the more progressive parts of today’s US want to join Canada? How will parts of Texas and the southwest interact with Mexico (especially with increasingly blue New Mexico)?
Back to CleanTech
With this big picture strategy discussion, we need to approach clean technologies. All of this will affect them, and we need to think every step of the way about how any compromise, agreement or national divorce will affect clean technologies.
When we see a proposal, we have to ask the hard questions: How will it affect the availability of hydroelectric power, the solar-rich environment, and transmission lines? What about EV manufacturing? Will the proposed amendment or constitutional agreement affect the availability of rare earth minerals? Would we put the entire US and/or North America at a disadvantage for the future on any of these issues?
The good news? Any move that undermines America’s competitiveness could be used against America First conservatives and other nationalists. What’s good for CleanTech can often be seen in a patriotic spirit (which is mostly true!).
Bottom line
The idea of an Article V convention, secession, and the like may seem strange now, but there was a time not too long ago when we didn’t think the Supreme Court would overturn Roe, overturn the EPA, or end gun control. as you know. But these happened after a long-term strategy of conservatives.
In order to protect the future of clean technologies in the future, we need to think ahead about how we will respond to a convention of states and, perhaps more importantly, how we will respond to a bad outcome if that is not possible. prevented.
Featured image: A view of North America from space. Image by NASA (Public Domain).
Do you value CleanTechnica’s originality and clean tech news? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Tech or Ambassador, or a Patron on Patreon.