In Part 1, I explained the problems that could arise from Article V conventions of the states. It is a method never before used in the United States Constitution to amend the document, and it is fraught with challenges and the possibility of “escape” resulting in an entirely new constitution written by Republicans .
In this second part, I want to discuss three possible strategies for protecting cleantech in the event of such a convention. To implement these strategies, a coalition of representatives from blue states, purple states, and possibly light red states would have to work together, as described in Section 1.
Blunt Strategy (Damage Control)
One obvious strategy would be for the opposition coalition to simply engage in damage control. This would require the least number of states, but still has a good chance of preventing the worst from happening.
For this, the coalition would have to agree on certain red lines before the congress. Those red lines would have to be largely drawn on what light blue, purple and light red states could agree on. Red lines would certainly allow things to happen that deep blue progressives wouldn’t like at all, but it would help prevent total defeat and give deep blue states a voice in the process.
Possible things that would cross that red line would be a complete loss of all environmental regulatory powers, a complete overturning of Wickard v. Filburn (a 1942 case that greatly expanded federal power), or any amendment that tilts the council in favor of fossil fuels.
Obviously, this would mean additional red lines outside of environmental issues, but it would take a huge series of articles to go through all of these potential issues. Within the opposition, there is the possibility of trading these issues for environmental protection. How the whole thing would work would largely depend on which states could be put in opposition and who would be on the side of the red states.
Horse Trading Strategy
Another possible method that a coalition of purple and blue states could use to protect their interests at the convention would be to decide what is most important and trade what is not so important to them for things that are.
This strategy will probably make dark blue progressives the craziest, but it could lead to greater protection of some of the things that dark blue people really care about. For example, letting red states pollute more in exchange for solid protections for blue states’ environmental policies might be a trade Republicans would accept. It’s not ideal, of course, but the states’ rights part of this debate would win over more Republicans.
Horse-trading could also take place across issues that could be touchy within the opposition coalition. For example, imposing a clear pro-gun replacement for the Second Amendment (NYSRPA v. Bruen already did, whether some of us want to see it or not) in exchange for allowing climate change regulation at the federal level would force Republicans to fight each other over the two issues and split the majority .
As with a damage control strategy, what horses could be traded would depend on who is in the opposition coalition and how big the coalition actually is. A larger coalition would require weakening the opposition and risk losing the bluest states, while a staunch opposition would risk losing purple states.
It would also depend on the delegates from the red states. If there were more delegates favoring one conservative issue over another, the opposition could gain control of that aspect of the convention by throwing the right Republican factions the right bones. That would require a lot of research, and fast.
National Divorce or Separation Strategy
If things look too bleak going into the convention, blue states may have no choice but to use the convention to gain more autonomy or break away from the red state crowd altogether. That would be a truly dire situation to face, but this strategy is not an all-or-nothing proposition. As with a real divorce, the details of things like parenting are where many of the difficulties and disagreements lie.
In some ways, the Republicans are already doing that with the convention, so it makes sense to think about this becoming a divorce that everyone can live with instead of a divorce where it becomes murder-suicide for the states that make up the United States.
In some ways, this is a variant of the horse-trading strategy, as an opposition coalition would give the red states much of what they want, but only on the condition that the blue states are not forced to agree. It would also work within a coalition, allowing purple states to stand up for their blue neighbors without being so affected by the outcome.
As I said before, this is not an all or nothing proposition. National divorce could come in the form of allowing dissenting states to become semi-autonomous states, to become independent countries in loose association with the United States (several Pacific islands are already similar), or to have a proper process of secession for states that do not want to remain in the union at all (and a process for contracts that enter into force after withdrawal).
How well any of these arrangements could work, of course, would depend on the details, especially the fate of people who would not want to live in an independent California or Texas. There are also questions about travel should any state still in the union or any withdrawing state become closed (would neutral zone corridors on interstate highways solve that?). What about tax revenue?
The broader international question would hinge on how the North American continent might rebuild in the event of a peaceful breakup or loosening of the United States’ association. Would rural Canada join the conservatives in the United States? Would the more progressive parts of the US today want to join Canada? How would parts of Texas and the Southwest interact with Mexico (especially increasingly blue New Mexico)?
Back to CleanTech
With this grand strategy discussion, we need to refocus on cleantech. All of these things would affect them, and we have to think every step of the way about how any compromise, agreement or national divorce would affect cleantech.
When we see a proposal, we have to ask ourselves hard questions: How would it affect the availability of hydropower, the sun-rich environment, and transmission lines? What about EV production? Would a proposed amendment or constitutional agreement affect the availability of rare earth minerals? Would we put the entire United States and/or North America in a bad position for the future on any of these issues?
Good News? Any move that would harm American competitiveness can be used against “America First” conservatives and other nationalists. What’s good for CleanTech can often be cast in a very patriotic light (largely because it’s true!).
Bottom Line
The idea of an Article V Convention, secession, and the like may seem outlandish now, but it wasn’t that long ago that we didn’t think the Supreme Court would overturn Roe, gut the EPA’s authority, or end gun control. as we know it. But these things happened after a long-term conservative strategy that worked for them.
To protect the future of cleantech into the future, we need to think ahead about how we would respond to a convention of states, and perhaps more importantly, how we would respond to a bad outcome if it could not be avoided.
Featured image: A view of North America from space. Image by NASA (Public Domain).
Do you appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality and reporting? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica member, supporter, technician or ambassador – or a patron on Patreon.