Posted on 04/29/2015 8:15:44 AM PDT by MichCapCon
A new study published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy makes the case for a new state-led process for amending the U.S. Constitution. Nick Dranias, the study’s author and president of the Compact for America Educational Foundation, argues that Michigan should join the effort already under way to use this new process to create a constitutional amendment to require the federal government to balance its budget.
Gov. Rick Snyder already signed a resolution in 2014 calling for such an amendment to the Constitution, but Dranias writes that that effort likely won’t amount to much. Instead of using such resolutions, Dranias says that states should create an interstate compact to achieve a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
“The Compact for a Balanced Budget, which has already been joined by Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, is an interstate agreement that advances, proposes and ratifies a federal Balanced Budget Amendment in a single state legislative bill,” said Dranias.
States can initiate a process to create constitutional amendments under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. However, the states have never successfully proposed any amendments this way, and Dranias argues that the traditional approach to using Article V is problematic.
For instance, even though two-thirds of the states would agree to a particular amendment, once a convention is called by Congress, there’s little the states can do to prevent a “runaway convention,” where delegates propose all sorts of constitutional amendments, some of which might be deal-breakers for some states.
Dranias’s solution is to package together all of the legislative and congressional acts that are needed to create a constitutional amendment into an interstate compact. The compact, Dranias argues, will guide the entire process of creating an amendment to bring to the states for ratification — preventing runaway conventions and other potential problems associated with the traditional approach to Article V.
“The Compact for a Balanced Budget promises the speed that is needed to deliver timely federal fiscal reform by consolidating into one bill everything the states do in the amendment process and everything Congress does into one resolution,” Dranias said.
Ummm, you do know that this is a completely unconstitutional method for proposing amendments and therefore anything coming from such a compact wouldn’t even be considered, right? Also, any interstate compacts must be approved of by Congress (Article I, Section 10), so this is a non-starter in so many ways.
Every change must be one that inhibits government.
The Constitution was ratified to replace the Articles of Confederation. An ineligible President voids the Constitution. Amending a voided document is a waste of time. A new, national governing document must be ratified by the states on behalf of the people.
Even if that statement is correct, and I have doubts, it doesn’t apply to the present officeholder. The Congress in its entirety declared him to be eligible. (see 2009 Joint Session.)
That many of us believe that congress was, perhaps tragically incorrect is beside the point; at least until a subsequent congress takes corrective action.
It is a common misconception Congress is constitutionally mandated to gather together to witness the counting of the votes by the Electors and object to how the Electors voted or why the Electors voted the way they did. Faithless votes by the Electors cannot be objected to or overturned by the Congress or the Courts. Congress is a servant of the people. Congress is not authorized to prevent the people from cancelling the Constitution when flaws become apparent as the Articles of Confederation were cancelled.
Faithless voting by the Electors was intended to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the office based on the premise the Electors would support the Constitution faithfully and deny the popular vote for an ineligible President. In the case of the ineligible Obama, the Electors chose to fulfill the will of the majority. Congress and the Courts are powerless to prevent the will of the majority electing the leader of their choice, even an ineligible leader.
I know you mean well, Sven. However, I believe you are somewhat off point.
The Joint Session mandated by the Constitution and later by 3 USC 15 is not solely for the purpose of objecting to “how the Electors voted or why the Electors voted the way they did” as you seem to argue. That forum is intended among other things to address irregularities including the ineligibility of a president-elect. At least, that is how the Democrats and the chair involved with the Gore-Bush debacle viewed the term, “other things”.
I am not sure I understand the argument you make in your second paragraph. Are you saying if the electors certify one animated “Mickey Mouse” as the successful candidate of the election, the Congress is authorized to exam only the credentials of the electors and is not empowered to take other action regarding the election?
Will give Sven the last word in order to avoid taking this thread off-topic. ;^)
It’s not off-topic to discuss the election of an ineligible President when the topic is “A How-to When Changing the Constitution.”
The sole purpose of the Electors in the Electoral College is to vote faithlessly if the people attempt to void the Constitution by electing an ineligible President. If the Electors choose not to vote faithlessly, then the Congress is powerless to prevent the will of the People. 3 USC 15 concerns objections if there is a misreading of votes, incorrect vote counting, or votes by Electors with authority according the state’s laws.
Further, Congress is powerless to “enlarge or abridge” the citizenship status of a US citizen. That’s why you may see a resolution concerning the natural born citizenship status of a candidate and not a Congressional Act passed by Congress. Only the President can abridge the citizenship status of a US citizen within a limited set of circumstances by issuing a Certificate of loss of Nationality.
Congress will always find a reason to dismiss the People when it means a loss of power or authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.