...voters support an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments that address four specific issues:
- Term limits for Congress
- Term limits for unelected federal officials
- Federal spending restraints
- Constraining the federal government to its constitutionally mandated authority
...While SCOTUS slowly and methodically curtails the powers of the administrative states, Meckler believes a Convention of States will act more like a sledgehammer to the foundations of the bureaucratic regime. “All we have to do is reinforce the non-delegation doctrine. Nope, sorry. There is no EPA anymore. Department of Education, gone. No Department of Energy. No Health and Humans Services. Those departments are fundamentally unconstitutional,” he asserted. ” We need to take that position as soon as possible.”
Amendments to the constitution that are proposed in this way require 3/4ths of states to ratify them, which is 38 states. As I was (not quite as recently) discussing, there probably are the votes to do that for interstate concealed carry and other gun rights: 38 states including my own recognize my firearms permit. It may or may not be possible to get them to sign off on gutting the Federal bureaucracy.
Even if it were, though, the problem is that a substantial number of Americans -- perhaps a majority, though disproportionately located in a few high-population states like New York and California -- really want that big bureaucracy running every aspect of everyone's life. They want transfer payments on an even greater scale, perhaps a Universal Basic Income, perhaps Single Payer healthcare, and so on. A mere change in the wording of the constitution won't stop them from packing the Supreme Court and disregarding the new language just like they do the old language.
The real answer is independence and separation of the parts of the union that want fundamentally different forms of government.
At that point, the several states could partner up into new (smaller) unions if they wished, as perhaps the Northeast would want to do. States could also hold similar conventions at home and dissolve if they feel like they're internally divided along geographic lines: North Carolina could dissolve east/west, with Western NC joining Tennessee to create a much more natural political union.Then everything would be easier, almost: legislation and budgets could get passed, because people would agree on basic values. The continent would become somewhat more like Europe; we'd probably want to negotiate a free trade area and freedom of travel. We might break up the Army, but agree to jointly fund the Navy to keep the sea lanes open. That could be based on existing joint command structures like Supreme Allied Command -- Europe.
It would be easier to get 38 states for the bigger proposal, ironically, because New York and California might well vote for it too. They would each stand to gain a nation of several local states they could dominate and align with their own interests. There it would be nothing more than Green New Deals and Rainbow parades to the horizon, with no conservative ideas to muck up their vision. Like others, they might prefer to rule in their own hell than to serve in another's heaven.
6 comments:
Perhaps this is last-ditch desperation: We can't go on like this much longer. Something's gotta give. A Constitutional convention that attempts to fix things seems preferable to splitting up the country. So let's try that first.
Perhaps part of being "conservative" is trying to conserve the country even when such efforts seem unlikely to succeed.
We have a perfectly fine Constitution, with a built-in mechanism for adjusting it. The problem is not in our Constitution but in ourselves--our politicians and the bureaucrats they hire increasingly choose not to enforce it, and we keep electing them.
Why do you think a new constitution, or our present Constitution massively amended, would be any better enforced?
We the People need to shape up, not our Constitution. In the event, the only amendment we need to our present Constitution is a version of the term "limits" carried in Art V of our Articles of Confederation. That, at least, would force us to go slower on reelecting.
Eric Hines
Why do you think a new constitution, or our present Constitution massively amended, would be any better enforced?
That is, in fact, my argument for why this step will be inadequate. All it takes is one packed SCOTUS and all those constitutional amendments will go the way of the 10th Amendment (and they way they would like to send the 2nd).
No one is proposing a new constitution, or massive amendments to our current one.
The Constitutional Revolution of the 1930s twisted things out of shape, but it took 140 years to get that far. We just need some tweaking to get us back on track.
I don't personally think term limits will do much, although I like Mr Hines's suggestion for it if we go that way. I do think federal spending constraints and a return to the federal government staying in its lane (i.e., staying within the Enumerated Powers) would be significant improvements on our situation. Note that the latter change just returns our interpretation back to a pre-FDR interpretation; it's not really so much a change to the Constitution as a restoration.
It's fair to ask why I think these few amendments (because that's all we're talking about) will be better enforced, although it seems like a slippery slope fallacy to me. In any case, my answer is that conservatives fought hard to get the Supreme Court we have now, and it is making a difference. So, we keep fighting and make the Court even more Originalist. I certainly don't see adding a few amendments as a cure-all.
That said, I do think we should add an amendment to set the number of justices at 9. Let's take court packing off the menu.
The system is corrupt. No laws, no constitution will change anything until the rule of law is enforced and consequence returns. Right now we have a situation where most of the population are under the boot for any infraction, yet others have total freedom from consequence for the most egregious offenses, depending on political status, wealth, or whatever other flavor of special is protected.
There is no equal application of the law, it has reverted to a tool of tyranny in service to the New Lords. Years of stupidification in the public propaganda corps have ensured most do not even have a clue as to what is happening to them.
Yuri Bezmanov was right.
I'm not sure how to frame or phrase a constitutional amendment for the purpose, but I'd like to undo the presumption of "civil service" jobs. For sure the old "patronage" system had it's problems and invited forms of corruption. But life-time hires into the invisible aristocracy exemplified by the BBC's "Sir Humphrey Appleby" are not part of the early American tradition or understanding of government. The import of this concept from UK has not proven long-term beneficial. If every federal job HAD to be filled by (presidential?) executive appointment the list of such jobs would necessarily be shorter, and turnover higher.
Post a Comment