By – Mike Kapic
Polls indicate that Americans are rightly concerned about the direction their government is heading
Rising debt, attacks on speech and religion, falling trust in federal agencies, insolvency threats to entitlements (Social Security, Medicare), political elitism, distrusted media, divisiveness, and the disintegration of religious values with increasing secularism.
There’s a growing feeling our Congressional representatives are not listening to us because nothing changes. The problems keep getting worse.
When America found itself in trouble in colonial days, we organized ourselves into an effective gathering with the purpose of resolving a specific issue. More times than not, we corrected our path, leading to growth, prosperity, and an enduring freedom envied by the world for centuries to come.
There was, however, period between the beginning of the Revolutionary War and the signing of our Constitution; from 1775 to 1787 that we stumbled while learning to walk. Because of our weak and ineffective first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the United States nearly destroyed itself.
We had, for example, a single body Congress that that was led by a new president every year, states sent as many Congressmen as they wanted, but had only one vote per state, Congress had no power to tax or raise revenue, the government printed ‘greenbacks’ that quickly ignited inflation, states would rarely send their revenues to Congress, War veterans were rarely paid, no defined judicial authority, and each state was its own sovereign, to name but a few of our foibles.
As our country was nearing collapse, the Annapolis MD convention of 1786 called for another to resolve the problems of the Articles of Confederation and reform the US government. Soon, Virginia called a convention to “render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”
This convention process had been used hundreds of times in towns and colonies since the 1630’s and proved to be an effective tool for resolving issues not solvable by local legislators. They gathered to find solutions to safety, defense, inflation, currency, government reform, trade, etc. A uniform set of operating procedures evolved which continue today.
During the Founding era, conventions occurred, on average, every 3 ½ years. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 reformed the US government into a federal republic by integrating the Articles of Confederation into the new US Constitution giving the country the structure it needed to not only survive but to thrive. The same process was last used in September 2017 in Phoenix, Arizona.
The same method could be used again to propose amendments to limit government through term limits and a balanced budget, for example. The Founders codified the process in Article V for times like these. They knew that Congress wouldn’t self-correct and that the people needed a legal and safe way to reform our government should the need arise.
To learn more, visit the Article V Library.
Mike Kapic is an AMAC Delegate for Arizona CD08 and author of ‘Conventions That Made America: A Brief History of Consensus Building’.
As long as AMAC supports Convention of States I will be a member.
The Constitution is NOT broken. The fact that a significant portion of the voting public neither takes their responsibilities as American citizens seriously. with respect to who and how they choose their elected representatives, and in many cases don’t even bother to vote at all in elections, will NOT be fixed by amending the Constitution. The problem isn’t the Constitution. It is the American citizens that have become both apathetic and indifferent to what the federal government does until such actions result in some sort of crisis. then all we hear is “How could this have happened?” Look in the mirror people. This republic, nor any other free nation on earth where the public has chosen to abdicate their responsibilities to manage the people they elect to represent them in that nation’s capitol, was never designed to operate on auto-pilot. Which is what many seem to really want at the end of the day via a CoS. Automatic budget balancing. Automatic this and that. Anything to avoid personal responsibility for the decisions people make when it comes to elections.
Simply empowering the federal government to make more automatic choices, by amending the Constitution and removing the public’s say in more and more aspects of how their government operates, will NOT produce the magic fix many proponents of a CoS on our side envision. This is NOT the late 18th century. Today we live in a truly bifurcated country with half the population wanting to return to some semblance of how country was meant to function, based on the Constitution as written. The other half the country, to put in very simply, wants to be taken care by the other half of the country and would love to remove the remaining restrictions the Constitution places on what the federal government can do to its own citizens to bring that about. If anyone thinks the left will NOT demand and receive equal representation in any CoS process, then they are fooling themselves. The left has been pushing for a CoS for decades now, as they see it as the most effective and expedient means to weaken the restrictions the Constitution places on our federal government’s ability to force its citizens to do a myriad of things that would make life so much easier for the administrative state.
Many people do not understand how a convention of states would work and the safeguards therein against a leftist takeover of matters. Each state legislature represented at such a convention would have only one vote per proposed constitutional amendment. Each state legislature would set the rules and authorities for its delegates to the convention including penalties for trying to operate/vote outside the authority granted to them by their sponsoring legislature. These penalties can include, for example, a felony charge, financial fine, and/or immediate recall from the convention. The ultimate “check” on any proposed amendment coming from a convention of states is that the amendment would have to be ultimately ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (38 states) in order to become part of the constitution and law of the land–a very high bar that has been crossed only 27 times in over 200 years. So the risk of a leftist takeover of a convention of states is, in my opinion, grossly overly exaggerated and based mainly on fear. We Americans are much better than succumbing to such fear.
The Constitution is not broken. The electorate is not educated on politicians and issues facing the nation. That is the problem. The Constitution is the solution. An Article V Convention is a recipe for disaster because the left could essentially rewrite the Constitution as they see fit. Reducing the size of the federal government is the answer and giving more power to the states (as intended) is the right answer. Any powers not granted to the federal government as written in the Constitution are 10th Amendment issues and belong to the states. Educated yourselves. Article V is not the way to fix the country, article VI is the right way.
I was surprised to see this opinion piece that appears to support an Article V convention. Is this the official position of AMAC? If so, then I have some follow up questions. How carefully does the federal government currently follow the Constitution? Does it limit itself to the “few and defined” powers (James Madison’s words) that were delegated to it? Why should we expect that adding a few more amendments, even beneficial ones, would suddenly cause the government to adhere faithfully to the Constitution? The role of the states, as described in the actual text of Article V, is to apply for the convention. Congress then calls the convention. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines the process of delegate selection, voting, etc. Congress would most likely make those rules. There is no guarantee that the scope of the convention would be limited, nor that it would be “one state, one vote.” Rather than amend the Constitution, why don’t we demand adherence to it? Why play Russian roulette with that precious document? If AMAC supports an Article V convention, my membership will be short-lived.
As I appear to be ignorant to one respondent, perhaps someone can explain to me how either Article VI or X can be used to, for instance, limit the terms for people serving in Congress to only 12-15 total years for example. Or how Article VI or X can be used to give a super majority of state legislatures (30 state governments) an override power over any federal law, policy, regulation, or judicial decision (including SCOTUS decisions) that are deemed by the states to be financially burdensome such as unfunded mandates or otherwise egregious in some manner. The above are only two sample amendments that, if ratified, would systemically change how the feds operate.
I am waiting on an answer to how nullification would work today with 50 state governments? Do you think for one minute that all 50 states would agree to uniformly nullify anything? Not workable. My question remains: how can either Article VI or X can be used to, for instance, limit the terms for people serving in Congress to only 12-15 total years. Or how Article VI or X can be used, for example, to give a super majority of state legislatures (30 state governments) an override power over any federal law, policy, regulation, or judicial decision (including SCOTUS decisions) that are deemed by the states to be financially burdensome such as unfunded mandates or otherwise egregious in some manner. These type systemic changes to fed gov’t operations can only come by amendments—proposed amendments generated at a convention of states.
The author of this article, like all Article V proponents, assumes that Article V was provided to deal with a federal government that is usurping power. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both methods for amending the Constitution were given to deal with problems identified WITHIN the Constitution. The convention method was provided to deal with problems identified WITHIN the Constitution that were embraced by the federal government to the disadvantage of the States or the People. Our problems today are with a federal government that IGNORES the Constitution. Changing it will not correct that problem. The Convention of States Project (COSP), for unknown reasons, is pushing a false solution that will give socialists the opportunity they are seeking to grab more power, more quickly. It is a false solution, because it does not address the real problem. In a constitutional republic, people who are not responsible to remain vigilant will lose their liberty. The federal government is growing in power because we (the People) no longer enforce the limiting features of the Constitution. No amendment can fix that! The 10th amendment already makes it clear that the states and the people have reserved for themselves all powers not enumerated. It is similar to a “NO TRESPASSING” sign that is being ignored. Rewriting it will not keep people (or governments) from ignoring it. Enforcement will. No amendment can take away power that was never given, anyway. All of the COSP proposed amendments would give power to the federal government that is NOT currently given to it. COSP’s “fiscal restraints” already exist as NON-enumerated powers. For example, there is no power given to the federal government to do charitable works, like foreign aid, funding state budgets, welfare programs, etc. These responsibilities (powers) are reserved to the states and the people by the 10th amendment. Fiscal restraints without enforcement of current limitations will justify current UNconstitutional spending and will likely lead to justification of tax increases to balance the budget. COSP’s attempt to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” cannot possibly be more explicit than the 10th amendment. And “limits”, by the way, can increase power or decrease power, depending on what limit is set. The 10th amendment already sets the limit at the enumerated powers. And COSP’s “term limits” would only decrease the influence constituents have on what would then be “lame duck” representatives. “Officials and members of Congress” would be more inclined to listen to lobbyists than their constituents who would no longer have any ability to do anything for them with their votes. Term limits, like gun controls, punish the responsible citizen for the actions of the irresponsible citizen. A person who DOES vet the candidates, and DOES vote, will lose their freedom to vote for the candidate of choice that has been term limited out of office (less liberty). The irresponsible citizen, who places no value on their duty to vet and vote, will suffer the consequences as well as the responsible, but doesn’t care about their liberty enough to remain vigilant, anyway. The same problem will exist, with or without, term limits. But with term limits there will be less liberty, not more. Wrong solution again.
I do, however, disagree with the assertion that the Constitution is NOT broken. It is interesting to note that COSP is not trying to repeal the damaging 16th amendment which empowered the federal government with the abusive income tax system. Nor are they trying to fix the damaging 17th amendment, which changed the balance of powers created by the framers by weakening the states’ power over the federal government. U.S. Senators no longer have the same incentive to protect the powers reserved for the states, because they answer to the People rather than the state legislatures. These observations disprove the COSP assertion that the ratification process will prevent bad amendments. Both the 16th and 17th amendments were ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Along with the 18th amendment, which was obviously a bad amendment because it was repealed by the 21st amendment, COSP’s argument is provably wrong as shown by historical facts. It makes one wonder about the wisdom (or the motives) of COSP. If they are really serious about saving the republic, they would be more wise to spend all that money on 1) learning how the framers intended for us to enforce the U.S. Constitution and 2) teaching others what they have learned. Hint: The answer can be found in Article VI of the Constitution.
I believe that the various posts are more in line with opinion and some conjecture. Can we discuss the subject at hand from maybe, a more “direct” point. Let’s use a process of an “argument of infinite regression”, by first declaring the subject content and simplifying the point!
First and foremost, the “point” is, government out of control, reining in a government out of control and government”s abuse of unenumerated powers. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The only original intent of, correction of, use of, wording in our Constitution that allows for correction in these matters IS Article V Convention Of States. In order for the States, directed by we the people, the constituents, to resolve what government, obviously has every reason NOT to resolve. We the people have been appointed the ultimate authority and responsibility to order, command, demand, that the States do THEIR Constitutional Duty! As having enumerated, the powers to government, they have the Duty and Authority to reclaim unemumerated powers and restore an abused, ignored, tattered Constitution. The initiating authority and responsibility, lies within the PEOPLE.
The entire Constitution is a document of checks and balances. An Amendment, instructing government, limiting government, demanding Constitutionally that government operate within enumerated powers can be very instrumental to reining in fiscal abuse, abuse of demeaning/relinquishing sovereignty, abuse of border protection, permitting anti-American activities of laws contrary to ours, (ShariaLaw) and Term Limits of those despising our Constitution.
If arguments need be debated, the parameters of a fail-safe process of a COSP, would be much more important than speculating the extremely unlikely run-away scenarios.
In any event, and once again, for the sake of “cutting to the chase” and for an “argument of infinite regression”, we should get down to basics and begin with a NATIONAL CONVERSATION loudly, and at the same time bring forth the scholars to educate the populace on Article V Convention Of States and its necessity.
Were sinking fast people, and nearing the slippery slope, into the abyss of no return.