Article V and the John Birch Society: Allies Separated By A Common Goal (Vanity)

Of the many people I've met over the last two years who are opponents of an Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, one of my greatest regrets is that there are many with whom I would most likely agree on virtually every other issue in modern-day political discourse. Many of them, however, almost proudly admit that their positions on a COS are rooted in a decades-old fear of the unknown and an inability to trust their fellow citizens, while most COS proponents put their faith in stringent, new safeguards and an optimistic view of the future. The irony of it all is that we are ostensibly striving for the same outcome… a safer, stronger, more democratic republic of sovereign states.

I am corresponding with one such COS opponent who is involved in an eMail campaign in another state, attempting to defeat our COS legislation. I’ve told him that I cannot wish him good luck in his attempt to scuttle the efforts of good, strong, constitutionalists who only want a free and open national debate in a forum guaranteed to introduce conservatism and Originalist thinking to a public starved for such concepts, starved intentionally by a left-leaning media. I hear opponents of a COS deride their fellow citizens for not having sufficient knowledge in civic matters, rendering them unqualified, the opponents say, to participate in something as critical as the amendment process, while they themselves blindly follow an outdated strategy of obstructionism that prevents the public from receiving the very education that they say is lacking. I find no sound logic in that, nor do I see a genuine concern for educating the public. I see a smoke screen, a straw man, an excuse to justify their knee-jerk resistance.

A national forum such as a COS would not only garner wall-to-wall attention from our own media, but from political observers the world over. We don't pretend to expect positive coverage from the Alphabet Networks, but the truth is that they no longer have a monopoly on the news. Even negative coverage of conservative principles is better than no coverage at all… it just might be enough to spark curiosity, to start people thinking, some of whom admittedly aren't accustomed to thinking for themselves.

If it makes them curious, then that’s good. Curious people do curious things… curious and predictable things. They will seek out the other side of the story… they will find FNC, they will find C-SPAN, they will find Drudge and Lucianne.com and Free Republic and Breitbart and Red State and countless Facebook pages and Twitter accounts where they will learn about the Founders' vision for America, unvarnished and unfiltered by Big Government or its lackeys in the public schools and in the mainstream press.

Just one hour of debate between an eloquent proponent of a balanced budget amendment and an equally passionate big spender would be the equivalent of a PhD in economics for the low-information viewer… and which argument do we honestly think would prevail with the majority?

Or, how about listening to a red state legislator who can clearly illustrate the terrible waste, fraud and abuse caused by overlapping and redundant federal, state and county regulations, one who is conversant in the Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction and can elaborate on state sovereignty and the simplicity and efficiency of single-authority subject-matter jurisdiction… up against a less liberty-loving blue state delegate who finds himself in the untenable position of trying to justify federal intervention into matters such as public education, energy production, medical and health issues, possession and sale of firearms, land use and building codes, water resources, liability insurance, lending practices, and voting rights, just to name a few.

In trying to make the point that any effort to pass an amendment would be futile because our current crop of politicians would simply ignore it, my correspondent asked for an example of a proposed amendment that would “turn oathbreakers into oathkeepers,” which I took to mean cause legislators to live within the law, rather than above it. I provided him with the following list of just the raw topics, the headlines, if you will, of some of the various proposals that could be introduced and publicly debated at an amendments convention. I challenged him to try to think, as he read down the list, of the last time he heard any of these issues debated or even casually discussed in any kind of public forum, and to then think about the reaction that such ideas would invariably have across the vast majority of the Heartland.

- A proposal to clarify the Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes Congress to enact laws that are "appropriate" and plainly adapted for carrying into execution Congress's enumerated powers; it does not authorize Congress to enact any law that Congress thinks is "reasonable." In other words, to invoke Necessary and Proper, a law must be "plainly adapted" to an enumerated end, a valid constitutional exercise of power by the Federal government.

- A proposal to reduce federal spending by clarifying the General Welfare Clause. The original view was that the federal government could not spend money on any issue that was naturally within the jurisdiction of the states.

- A proposal to reduce federal regulatory power by clarifying the Commerce Clause. The original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines - not ALL the economic activity of the entire nation.

- Similarly, as mentioned earlier, a proposal to establish the doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction, whereas one level of government - either state or federal, but not both - would have "subject matter jurisdiction" over any issue, eliminating overlapping and redundant regulation. If an issue can be properly and effectively regulated by the state, then the federal government would have no say in the matter.

- A proposal to prohibit the use of international treaties and international law to govern or guide the domestic law of the United States.

- A proposal to limit the use of Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact rules with the force of law, since the Constitution states clearly that Congress is to be the exclusive agency to enact laws.

- A proposal to impose mandatory lifetime term limits on members of Congress, all federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

- A proposal to require the sunset of all existing federal taxes, and require a super-majority vote of both chambers of Congress to re-instate or replace them.

- A proposal to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that our United States Senators once again represent and are answerable to our state legislators.

- And lastly, a Balanced Budget Amendment proposal requiring that the federal government spend no more than it takes in. The proposed amendment would also place an upper limit on federal taxation, requiring the states, not Congress, to ratify any request from the president for a debt ceiling increase. The proposal would redefine "debt" to include spending plus liabilities, would include an override waiver provision for national emergencies which would require a ¾ vote of Congress and would last for only one year. Any third consecutive National Emergency waiver would prohibit any member of that year's Congress from running for re-election.

But, since my questioner had asked for a single example, I told him that if I had to choose from that list just one proposal to be ratified as an amendment, one which would meet his requirement of turning “oathbreakers into oathkeepers,” it would have to be Term Limits.

The very prospect of an amendment to impose lifetime term limits on all federal officials is the primary reason that I support this movement. Since the Supreme Court ruled that the voters of a sovereign state don't have the right to impose term limits on their own locally-elected federal delegation, I can see no other way for us ever to bring an end to career politicians, including those who wear black robes to work.

Resolving that one issue, I believe, would go a very long way toward eliminating many of the most pressing issues that we face. Washington, DC, without a doubt, has become the most powerful and one of the most corrupt cities in the world, and no one who enters its enormous sphere of influence can help but be changed by it... and rarely for the better.

Virtually every politician's top priority, regardless of party, platform or principle, is to get re-elected. As soon as they arrive, they are surrounded by and steeped in the career mentality that pervades Washington, D.C. It is imposed on them, infused into them, particularly by the old dogs, the veterans, the party leaders, and soon the urgency of becoming a part of that culture of power supersedes anything they may have promised during their campaign. The wants and needs of the people who sent them there - the folks back home - all take a back seat to the new imperative - raise money for the Party, and ultimately for re-election.

In order for a newly elected candidate to maintain the party's financial support come election time, deals are made that have nothing to do with what's in the best interest of the voters back home. Legislation is passed at the direction of the party leadership, for instance, without a single legislator having read it. Does any of this sound anything like what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they coined the term, "Citizen Legislator"?

Meanwhile, we keep doing as we're told by The Establishment and the near-sighted automatons of The Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society… we throw the bums out… we vote in another conservative. We keep sending good people to Washington, only to see them disappear into the meat-grinder that is Congress, and come out the other side just so much baloney! If there were Term Limits and the candidate knew going in that their term was limited by constitutional edict, I firmly believe that they would think twice before casting a vote on legislation that could have a severe impact on the very communities to which they themselves will soon be returning… to live among the rest of us, to work at a job like a normal person again, outside of the Beltway Bubble, forced to bear the burden of whatever damned-fool laws Congress might pass with little or no concern for the unintended consequences they have on the daily lives of real people throughout this country.

And before anyone says that removing the "perks" of congressional service will cause a brain drain, and that no one of any consequence will want to run for an office that they can only hold for such a short amount of time, I would submit to you that if the folks up there running things right now are the best and the brightest that money, power and prestige can buy, then I think it's time for their de facto defenders, the opponents of a Convention of States, to open their eyes, join our ranks and help give some of us poor, stupid, uneducated people a chance… we couldn't possibly screw it up any worse!

And as for my anti-constitutionalist pen-pal, we truly are allies separated by a common goal.

State Legislatures. Exactly.

Again. Look up Texas House Speaker Joe Straus.

You won’t even get right minded delegates from states like Texas. Now, imagine who NY, CA, and MA will send...