A RESOLUTIONJust in committee for now, and of course it may not survive the legislative process. Even if it does, more than thirty other states would have to file similar demands before Article V can be invoked.
1 Applying for a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution; and
2 for other purposes.
3 WHEREAS, the founders of the Constitution of the United States empowered state
4 legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal
5 government; and
6 WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper
7 and imprudent spending; and
8 WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through
9 the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent;
10 and
11 WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the
12 Constitution of the United States; and
13 WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people,
14 particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
15 United States through a convention of the states under Article V of the United States
16 Constitution to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power.
17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
18 GEORGIA that the General Assembly of the State of Georgia hereby applies to Congress,
19 under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of
20 a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution
21 that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of
22 the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of
23 Congress.
24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is hereby directed to transmit
25 copies of this application to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to
26 the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, to transmit copies to
27 the members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives from
28 this state, and to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative
29 houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation.
30 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application constitutes a continuing application in
31 accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of
32 at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject.
Still, it's a start.
5 comments:
I disagree with this. Line 11, usw, seems dispositive: 11 WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the
12 Constitution of the United States[.]
Since, by assumption (and I don't disagree with it), the Federal government no longer honors the Constitution, there's no reason to believe it will honor Amendments requiring it to honor fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of
22 the federal government...., particularly since Art I, Sections 8 and 9, Arts II and III, and the 9th and 10th Amendments already require these.
I do agree with amending along the lines of
limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of
23 Congress.
Here, as I've argued before, the Articles of Confederation were on the right track by not limiting the number of terms absolutely--and thereby circumscribing the citizens' choice of representatives--but by limiting the number of terms that could be served in any given number of Congressional sessions (and so limiting only the citizenry's schedule of choices).
As for the other targets of Amendment, those are political solutions: we must fire unresponsive representatives, repeatedly, until we get a crop that will do what their employers (us, not lobbyists and special interests) instruct them to do, and do it within the limits of our social compact. No amount of altering our compact's parameters will change that.
Eric Hines
If a Constitutional Convention is called, is there any way of a priori limiting the topics it can discuss? I've head (IANACL) that once started it could go anywhere.
We could wind up enshrining all kinds of crazy plans in the result--and given the makeup of our political class, crazy would seem to have a better chance than sensible.
There's been a movement for years to call one just to consider a Balanced Budget Amendment. This one seeks to limit things too. I don't know that it would work, or could work, but I know they have to get 38 states to ratify any of their proposed changes before they take effect. That suggests you wouldn't get too radical an amendment. The last time we had a presidential election in which 38 states agreed was 1988, which was before the decades of massive immigration from Latin America pushed the electorate much further left.
I don't think we could actually agree on anything except dissolving the Union. That might get 38 states on board, because almost all the states would benefit from it. But it would be in line with the stated purpose of the convention, to limit the power of the Federal government. Dissolving it would certainly limit it, and accomplish the other stated purposes as well.
I only want one amendment. It would say something like: "Remember the commerce clause? Yeah, we meant that."
That by itself would solve many problems.
After that, let's see what other changes might be needed, but I'm not a proponent of term limits. If people want to fire their representatives, there are regular elections that let them do that already. We don't need anything else for it.
Come to think of it, I would also support limiting the immunity of judges, etc., to qualified, good faith immunity; and I would probably support requiring proof of criminal intent to convict anyone of a felony.
Post a Comment