[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This raises a very interesting proposition, for a seated Article V convention.

That is, while their individual states may restrict what *new* things, like a balanced budget resolution, that can be added to the constitution; the delegates at a convention may be free to “eliminate unconstitutional extrapolations made to the constitution.”

That is, they could resolve to wipe away any number of national sins made over the course of years, to include FDR’s extrapolation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to mean Intrastate as well; LBJ’s extrapolation of the General Welfare Clause to mean the creation of a welfare state; and the current EPA’s effort to nationalize all water, not just navigable water, as well as an atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide. Extraordinarily outside of the federal government’s constitutional authority.

This resolution wiping away countless extrapolations could be done in the preamble to the Article V convention agreement. In a manner of speaking, they would be using an external clause much like those who abused the other external clause, to end their abuses.

It would also “nail on the coffin lid” as a perpetual order to the Supreme Court that it could no longer permit such extrapolations, be they congressional acts or by judicial activism or precedent.

[Publius]

See Post #15. People are beginning to understand just how powerful Article V is.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

. . . It would also “nail on the coffin lid” as a perpetual order to the Supreme Court that it could no longer permit such extrapolations, be they congressional acts or by judicial activism or precedent.

Yeah, but if we have learned anything from Obamanation, it is that you need self-enforcing mechanisms. The term limit on presidents is “self enforcing,” to the extent that if Obama wants to stay in office permanently, he would need to evade the fact that the actual election of the next president will occur when the ballots of the electors are counted. Simply canceling the popular election wouldn’t do it, because the states would then be positioned to execute Plan B - direct election of the Electors by the legislatures of the states.

I would favor enforcement by the people - make whoever acts under color of legitimate authority personally responsible if they obey an unconstitutional executive order. And not pardonable by the POTUS who made the unconstitutional directive. We already have “responsibility” at the top in the impeachment power - but that proves to be illusory. The only way to address it is to make people afraid to obey the president if an order is clearly unconstitutional.

Maybe the Constitution should have a presidential Recall provision - Congress can cause a snap election, but the people who vote for it have to stand for reelection along with the POTUS. Since your side could only lose seats, that wouldn’t be attractive to a party not certain of its standing with the people.