The states created the federal government. They gave it a sphere of jurisdiction, over which it is supreme. That jurisdiction, however, is limited to the specific, enumerated powers contained in the text of the Constitution. All other powers—every single power not expressly delegated to the national government—remain vested in the states, or the people....His kind words for the 14th Amendment, though doubtless unavoidable given the rhetorical project, strike me as at odds with the idea of restraining an overweening Federal government. The 14th's delegation of power to the Federal courts is one of the things most in need of restraint by any new amendments. The idea that the Federal courts would prevent states from violating basic rights was nice, and probably even needed at the time the amendment was proposed, but it became the vehicle for forcing state submission to every Federal whim in every single kind of case. Outright repeal of the 14th might not be appropriate or necessary, but some sort of adjustment certainly is necessary if Coburn's vision is going to be realized.
Don’t fall for the lie that the Convention of States Project is some conservative plot to impose their policies on the American people. The real agenda is exactly the opposite: to restore the power of the American people to decide public policies for themselves.
A Word on The Convention of the States
Tom Coburn writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Do you want Sacramento to design the next Constitution? The first go-round included a compromise that wound up requiring a war to sort out. Folly and wicked madness generally carry an eventual price tag.
In theory, the Constitutional Convention would require 75% of states to ratify any proposed amendments -- meaning that California, which is way off by itself, would not be writing the changes.
Also, an Article V convention can be limited in scope. The Convention of States project limits the scope to limiting the power of the federal government. It is not designed to write a new constitution, and, of course, 3/4s of the states would have to vote yes on any proposed amendments.
Post a Comment