If states are serious about getting more clout in the federal system, they should call a constitutional convention.
Does that sound preposterous? It shouldn’t. Admittedly, “states’ rights” fell into disfavor during the civil rights movement of the last century. Some states claimed the (non-existent) right to discriminate against racial minorities. Unfortunately, “states’ rights” became a code word for bigotry.
Bull Connor and his infamous anti-integration fire hoses are long gone, but the consequences are still with us. Left unchecked, the federal government has continued its growth spurt begun under FDR’s New Deal. This result was exactly what our founders feared and tried to prevent — excessive concentration of power in a remote, centralized government, with the states demoted to a dependent role.
Although they like the federal money, states complain bitterly about federal encroachment into formerly local matters like education, intrastate commerce, incarceration policies and environmental protections. The unfettered federal government has accumulated a dangerous level of debt and now has foisted Obamacare’s expense onto the states’ already tottering finances.
But there’s not much that states can do. The U.S. Senate served as a forum for states’ concerns until state legislatures lost the right to elect their senators in 1913. The 10th Amendment, reserving all but the specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution to the “states respectively, or to the people,” has been mostly ignored by the courts. The states seem powerless to regain their power.
But states do have one last option. It has been there all the time and nobody can stop them from exercising their power because it’s in the Constitution. That’s the right to call a constitutional convention.
Article V of the Constitution provides two pathways for amending the Constitution. One is through amendments proposed by Congress. The other is by two-thirds of the states calling a “convention for proposing amendments.” In either case, amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Yet the states have never called a constitutional convention. Thomas Jefferson would have been disappointed. He believed that every generation or so, the states would need to propose amendments to check unwarranted powers and privileges accumulating at the federal level. Constitutional conventions would serve as needed routine maintenance for our system of checks and balances and would keep the state vs. federal relationship in proper working order.
Since it didn’t work out that way, one of the obstacles today is that states are uncertain how to proceed, even if they wish to do so. How would delegates be selected? How would the convention be organized and leaders selected? How would votes be apportioned? The lack of precedents is disconcerting to today’s policymakers.
Still, the logistical problems are solvable. Historic opportunities often demand courage. This convention could be a real game-changer. Some of the most needed reforms will never come from the status quo. Federal legislators are never going to agree to term-limit themselves or to substantially restrict the burdens they impose on states.
In the 1990s, there was an unsuccessful attempt to get the states to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment, requiring the federal government to live within its means. Think about how much stronger our economy would be, how much brighter our future would be, if the states could have pulled that off.
States can either complain about their degraded status or they can do something about it. The Constitution’s framers wouldn’t have given states powers they didn’t intend for them to use.
Maybe Arizona should lead the way. If not us, then who?
—
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Bill Walker posted at 8:12 am on Sun, Jul 11, 2010.
The author is correct that an Article V Convention is needed. However, like many people, he is obviously unaware of public record in this area. Given he is a former state legislator this is somewhat surprising.
The public record of state applications, which can be read at www.foavc.org clearly shows the states have submitted a sufficient number of applications to cause an Article V Convention in all. Because the Congress of the United States has deliberately refused to compile the records of these applications into a single public record, these records have been unavailable for public view until FOAVC, a private, non-partisan organization gathered them from the Congressional Record. There are over 700 recordings of applications in the Congressional Record. Congress is mandated to call if there are 34 applications from 34 states.
The author assumes the convention call must be for what is usually termed "same subject" that is the applications must be on the same amendment subject. He clearly does not understand Article V. The purpose of the Article V Convention application is to cause Congress to call which it has refused to do, not to propose an amendment. The states can only ratify a proposed amendment submitted either by Congress or a convention. In sum, the reason a convention has never happened is not because the states have not applied but because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call it.
As to his concerns regarding how a convention is organized so on, I refer you to an article which discusses this. Please see:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7581.html
The fact is a convention is now mandated by the Constitution. It is up to the people to demand Congress obey the Constitution and call it as required.
allamer posted at 1:56 pm on Fri, Jul 16, 2010.
The Constitution doesn't need to be amended-----it needs to be asserted! The Constitution has been ignored, almost completely, since FDR. The federal government has VERY LIMITED powers. Those specifically enumerated powers are listed in Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. However, the two-party system concentrates power in a few "party leaders" who sell political influence to special interests. This is not representation of citizens. So, what should be done? Well, bad legislation can be vetoed by the President. Oh wait, he is a "party leader". OK, how about the states and We The People? We are parties to the Constitution. The court can be petitioned to rule that legislation is unconstitutional or that the Executive Branch is ignoring its duty under the laws and Constitution. Yes, that is what SHOULD happen or the Constitution is meaningless. Seems pretty obvious. So, why hasn't that been happening? Could it be that corrupt politicians and special interests don't want anything like that to ever happen if their money has anything to say about it?
Bill Walker posted at 10:39 am on Mon, Jul 19, 2010.
Whoever Allamer is, he defeats his own argument that the Constitution does not require amendment by proving with his examples it does. He cites many examples of problems with the government THAT THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS meaning it is open to such actions by the government because it has not been amended to deal with these issues.
Allamer believes obviously we should "obey the Constitution as it is" then urges despite the fact the states have applied meaning we must hold a convention, that we NOT obey the Constitution. Thus he is a constitutional hypocrite. He says we should obey the Constitution which includes Article V then says we should not obey the Constitution because of Article V.
The fact is amendments work. We are in this predicament because amendments have not be proposed and ratified to stop excesses by the government and until they are these abuses will continue.
It comes down to a simple decision: do we solve the problems Allamer has described by use of the amendments system or do we do nothing and let events simply go on until this nation is destroyed? Allamer advocates the latter solution, I the former? Which makes more sense? Solve the problem or let us destroy us?
Gordie Hayduk posted at 10:40 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
ARTICLE V CONVENTION vs CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
First, let's use the proper language -- An Article V Convention is what we're talking about, not a Constitutional Convention or Con Con or an Article 5 Convention. The John Birch Society has been confusing the public for decades about this term; a Constitutional Convention took place in 1787, and that's the only time. So let's use Article V Convention or Article V Amendments Convention because only amendments will be proposed and not added to the law of the land until ratified by 38 States.
Second, an interesting experiment is being brought to life at www.ConventionUSA.org -- a Virtual Article V Convention being lead by retired Michigan Chief Justice Thomas E. Brennan. This online assembly will conduct a national convention to match a real convention as close as humanly possible. What's the purpose? To gather as many American patriots as possible to push real hard on Congress to call the long overdue Article V Convention -- and keep pushing and pushing and pushing, until they obey the very Constitution all of these public servants have taken an oath to serve.
Third, everyone is cordially invited to join this effort -- www.ConventionUSA.org/.