Amend it, or else ...
I’ve written repeatedly about the mostly unspoken constitutional crisis that has enveloped our country for the past 100 years and have even gone so far as to draft a Restoration Amendment to attempt to restore a proper balance between the power of the federal government and the states and individual citizens.
For the most part, I have concluded that serious change of the U.S. Constitution to reflect the original intent of the nations’ founders is virtually impossible. Nonetheless, I continue to argue that the only appropriate response to the progressives’ decades-long push to “transform” America is to fight back with a plan to “restore” the Constitution’s governing principles.
And since the Supreme Court, multiple presidents and the Congress have been unwilling to defend the principle of limited federal government, it is necessary for the people and the states to rise up and reclaim their sovereignty.
The only peaceful way to accomplish that is through amendment to the Constitution, and the only means of amending the Constitution that doesn’t require the active participation of Congress is the process described in Article Five of the Constitution whereby two-thirds of the state legislatures may demand that Congress call a “convention for proposing amendments.” Under our current 50-state union, that would mean 34 state legislatures would need to submit applications for a convention before it could take place.
Once the convention began, there is no certainty exactly what would take place because such a convention has never taken place yet. In fact, when a few efforts to call a convention got close to being approved by the requisite 34 states, Congress short-circuited the process by proposing amendments on its own, or passing other legislation which seemed to respond to the people’s complaints.
The main argument against a convention for proposing amendments is that the convention might exceed the original intentions of the state legislatures and propose amendments not even yet foreseen, or might swing the country in a direction that is dangerous.
This argument fails on two points:
1) The political creativity of the American people did not cease upon the close of the original Constitutional Convention in 1787. Nor did the concept of a republic governed by the people. If the representatives of the American people were to meet as a convention, I have no doubt that they would intelligently debate the future (and past) of our country in a way that would honor our nation’s founders. To assume otherwise suggests that we the people are no longer capable of self-government nor worthy of the trust of our posterity.
2) Even if the constitutional convention were to get out of control and propose dangerous amendments that could lead to either tyranny or anarchy, these amendments would still need to be approved by three-fourths of the states (at least 38 as currently configured) in order to become part of the Constitution. To assume that the states could not be trusted to protect their own sovereignty and their own citizens raises the question of why we trust them with any responsibility at all!
Moreover, if both the people and the states were to concur on a grand scheme to destroy liberty and enthrone tyranny, then wouldn’t it be better for We the People to find out now just where we stand?
If you are intrigued by this discussion, I suggest you visit the Outlaw Inn on Monday at 7 p.m. for the educational seminar being presented by Rob Natelson, a former University of Montana law professor and Republican gubernatorial candidate. He is currently affiliated with the Independence Institute think tank based in Denver.
Advance tickets cost $5 at www.stateconventionsolution.com or at Sykes Restaurant in Kalispell. Tickets will be $10 at the door, and people 21 years of age or younger enter free in an effort to promote civic involvement.
Natelson is a preeminent scholar advocating an Article Five convention, and in his opinion, there is no chance of a runaway convention. I don’t know if he is right or not, but as a pessimist, I am always on guard against the worst possible scenario. It would certainly not surprise me if there were an attempt to hijack the convention, but what do you think is worse: the remote possibility of a runaway convention or the absolute certainty of what we already have — a runaway Congress?
Doing nothing only ensures the status quo — keeping the dysfunctional, power-grabbing federal government we have now. To paraphrase Nathan Hale, “Give me a constitutional convention or give me death.”