Good day all. A couple of years ago, I reviewed a book by conservative talk show host, Mark Levin called the Liberty Amendments. In it he laid out a plan to amend the constitution using the Article V process to bypass congress.
There has been a lot of discussions about calling for an Article V convention and a number of state legislatures are actively looking into doing just this. Last week, Governor Greg Abbott, (R-Texas) announced that he is supporting the idea of an Article V convention to pass several amendments to the Constitution and strip power away from the Federal Government. Here are the details from the Dallas News Trailblazers blog:
Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”
“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.
First, lets read the text of Article V of the United States Constitution.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Basically, there are two ways to amend the Constitution. The usual way is to have bills to amend the Constitution passed in the House and Senate by a two thirds vote. Alternatively, the States can call for a convention to propose amendments, and then those amendments are sent to the states for the normal ratification process. What Governor Abbott and Mark Levin are seeking to do is bypass Congress since they would never pass through amendments that take power away from them.
Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states.
“The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders,” Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch.
Governor Abbott isn’t alone in that belief. We have a President who ignores Congress and the Constitutional separation of powers and simply issues Executive orders which he has no right to do. We also have a judiciary that has long since slipped off the rails and in many cases can’t even read plain language texts in a law. (Roberts recent Obamacare decision)
In April, 27 active petitions had been filed with Congress seeking a convention to amend the constitution to require that Congress adopt a balanced budget. Congress would be forced to act once 34 states joined the effort. So far, Cruz hasn’t endorsed the idea.
Balancing the budget is something that every state is required to do. Only the Federal Government can run up a debt, which it has been doing with great gusto for decades. There are also proposals to limit the terms of Senators and Representatives, and possibly repeal the 17th Amendment which allowed for the direct election of Senators rather then their appointment by each state’s legislatures.
Since talk of an Article V convention took off a few years ago, the Political and Pundit classes have been saying what a bad idea this would be. They like to say that such a convention would rapidly go out of control and you could see a mess come out of it that essentially rewrites the entire constitution.
In an editorial lambasting Rubio’s plan, USA Today‘s editorial board warned that such a process could invite mayhem and further poison the nation’s vitriolic political scene. It would also raise unresolved questions about the years-long process of ratification. And some conservatives who otherwise agree with Abbott and Rubio on many issues fear a convention could lead to greater restrictions on guns and money in politics and greater overall power for the federal government.
What the Political and Pundit classes aren’t considering is that anything that came out of an Article V convention would still have to go through the ratification process. Anything that radically changed things, such as revoking the 2nd Amendment, or the various sections of the 1st Amendment, would never make it through the state legislatures.
It requires ¾ of the states to approve an amendment. Anything they tried to pass that restricted people’s rights would be hammered by those same people. State legislatures have to pay attention, since they are living next to the people who would be very upset. Trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be a good way for the legislators to find out what it was like to be tarred and feathered.
Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention.
Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
- Require Congress to balance its budget.
- Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
- Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
- Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
- Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
- Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.
These are the changes Governor Abbot would like to see. Some of them simply reinforce the 9th and 10th Amendments. I do have an issue with the super-majority of the Supreme Court. I would need to see and understand Governor Abbott’s thinking on this.
I’m also not to sure about the states overriding a court decision, although the courts do need to be reigned in. He also hasn’t said anything about limiting the terms of Senators, Representatives and federal judges. As you might expect, the Democrats weren’t at all happy with Governor Abbott’s proposals.
Democrats were quick to denounce Abbott’s plan Friday, saying the governor has misplaced priorities.
“America added 292,000 new jobs in December. But under Abbott, Texas fell to sixth in job creation, remains the uninsured capitol of the nation, wages and incomes remain far too low for hardworking families, our neighborhood schools are still underfunded, and college education is slipping out of reach,” Texas Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia said in a statement. “Texas families deserve serious solutions, not Tea Party nonsense.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas issued a statement with similar sentiment. “Governor Abbott, as Texans, we prefer the Framers’ plan. Don’t mess with the Constitution,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.
Perhaps if the ACLU actually would defend the ENTIRE constitution, and not those just the parts they like, they would have more credibility. The ACLU hates the 2nd Amendment and won’t support any challenges to governments stripping the 2nd Amendment rights from people. Of course, it isn’t just the Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrats who are opposed to an Article V convention. There are quite a few members of the GOP(e) who hate the idea as well.
Last year, House legislators filed measures calling for such a convention. State Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, unleashed a screed against the proposal when it came before the Senate State Affairs Committee in May. He compared the idea to “a petulant teenager who’s lost a few basketball games and plans to burn down the gymnasium.”
Estes went on to promise a filibuster if the measure came to the Senate floor.
I looked this guy up. He’s been in the Texas Legislature since 2001. Obviously, I don’t know anything about him, but from the little research I’ve done, he isn’t all that great a Republican. It seems he has issues with opposing taxes. However, I’ll leave this in the capable hands of the Texans. It seems to me that he isn’t seeing the problem.
Personally, I like the idea of an Article V convention. I think it should start with one or two proposed amendments, the kind that are popular throughout the country, and despised by the political class in Washington, D.C. If one or two Amendments were approved by the convention, it might cause the Beltway Boneheads to actually take notice.
My personal 2 amendments would be some form of balanced budget amendment and limiting the terms of members of congress and the judiciary, with no grandfathering. If that were to pass, you would see a number of fossilized Moonbats and RINO’s bounced overnight. Well, I can dream can’t I?
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]
