You’ve identified the problem, but it is somewhat worse. That is, the national government has become institutionally ungovernable. It is beyond the ability of elections, and both political parties, to alter this destructive momentum.
So what if Sarah Palin was elected president? Even with a heavily Republican Senate and House, the national government institutional momentum is such that those Republican congressmen would be just as worthless as were the last bunch, under George W. Bush. And even Sarah Palin couldn’t change its course.
But there is another constitutional mechanism to correct a flawed national government. It is the constitutional convention of the individual States.
We were all raised with the idea that a constitutional convention was “unthinkable”, or would be “too radical”, or would be prone to manipulation by dark and insidious forces. But nothing could be further from the truth.
2/3rds (34) of the States must agree to convene a convention, and 3/4ths (38) of the States must vote in favor of any draft constitution they produce. This guarantees both that our national circumstances must be dire, and that a restoration of a *federal* government, from being a national government, is done in a conservative and orderly fashion.
And it is long past due for the States to convene such a convention.
The article mentions the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), as being critical to any debate on the subject, and it is, but the problems with our current constitution go all the way back to its very beginnings. It is past due for a bunch of “fixes”, to get our house in order.
Marbury v. Madison, in a nutshell, established both that the Supreme Court could constitutionally review laws; but just as importantly, that the President of the United States is in effect “above the law”, and cannot be controlled in any way other than with impeachment and conviction.
And this is the reason why today, the President can appoint “Czars” who have not been approved by the Senate, and why he can create federal agencies with a memorandum, and declare what parts of the law he feels like enforcing, with “Presidential Signing Statements.”
Here is a laundry list of other subjects that right now, the individual States and their citizens should be debating, prior to interstate discussions as to the formation and agenda of a constitutional convention. While there is some redundancy, there are serious arguments for each of these things.
This is *not* an inclusive list:
Repeal of the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (Direct Election of US Senators) Amendments of the constitution.
Flat Income Tax Amendment;
Balanced Budget Amendment;
Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment;
National Census Enumeration Only Amendment;
Personal Information and Records Limitation Amendment;
Corporate Civil Rights Distinct From The Civil Rights Of Living Persons Amendment;
Oligopoly Antitrust Amendment;
Presidential War Powers and Posse Comitatus Amendments;
Limitations on Presidential Authority To Declare Martial Law Amendment;
Presidential Authority Only Through Cabinet Officers, Appointment and Impeachment of Cabinet Officers Amendment; Term Limits for Recess Appointments;
Congressional Approval of Bureaucratic Regulatory Authority Amendment;
Creation of a State Appointed Constitutional Review Court Amendment (50 State Judges To Sit As a Federal Nullification Court);
Reorganization of Federal Judiciary Amendment;
Amendment for the Reduction of the Size and Authority of the Federal Government and Enabling Acts;
Writ of Mandamus Amendment;
Congressional and Judicial Term Limits Amendment;
Restoration of State Lands from Federal Land Takings and Limitations of Eminent Domain Amendment;
Delineation of a National Tribal Congress for Indigenous Peoples Amendment (renegotiation of treaties and integration of tribal and commercial law);
Limitations of Federal Intelligence and Police Authority, Surveillance and Records Retention Amendment;
Renunciation of the National Debt Amendment;
Abolition of the FED Amendment;
Prohibition of Federal Largess to Individuals Amendment;
Restrictions on Earmarks, Single Subject Congressional Act Amendment;
Abolition of Government Employee Unions Amendment;
Where does this silly notion come from?
If we cannot even elect a Congress that will do it's duty, what insanity makes people think they will elect delegates to a CC that will be any different from the current crop of thugs and crooks?
The same people who get elected NOW, and have created this mess, are the same people who would run a CC!
All a CC does is allow the current political class to rewrite those parts of the US Constitution they find inconvenient, like the 1st, 2nd and 10th Admentdments, to say something more to their likening.
NO, a CC is pure insanity. The solution is NOT to flailing around looking for some simplistic silly notions of some sort of quick fix.
The solution is for Conservatives to get off their asses and do the hard, nasty dirty work of winning elections.
Our elected officals have proven they CAN'T/WON'T reject the temptations of power. Look at the 0care bill they just passed. Sure you can say the pubbies will be different, but it was [Snowe? Collins? both?] that helped it out of comittee.
What we need, is a House that will refuse to fund the unconstitutional apparatus of fedgov.... ie DoE, BATF, etc etc.
We don't need amendments for much of the things you mentioned... ie
National Census Enumeration Only Amendment
The census is spelled out; we need to stop the abuse of the census, an amendment is not needed
Abolition of the FED Amendment
The FED is unconstituional; it needs abolished. An amendment is not needed.
Flat Income Tax Amendment,
This is still a regressive tax. How about repeal the 16th Amendment and institute the FairTax.... which is a tax on consumption.
Personal Information and Records Limitation Amendment;
We already are protected under the 4th and 5th Amendments... we need to enforce those rights. How many Amendments do we need to assert our rights? A million of them won't do any good if we refuse to exercise them. further, the 9th and 10th Amendments already garuntees us the protections because it further limits the Fed and States... and speciffically grants us all rights not enumerated.
Corporate Civil Rights Distinct From The Civil Rights Of Living Persons Amendment;
No. Corporations are made up of people. Just because they belong to a body (corporation) does not mean they lose any rights..... SCOTUS just ruled on this regarding McCain-Feingold.
Renunciation of the National Debt Amendment
This would severly handicap us during a war or crisis. The US has always been in debt... even under the Articles. In fact one of the reasons for the ConCon was the fedgov did not have the power to tax; this was essential because the new country had war debt. Part of the reason many southern states did not want to scrap the Articles and sign the Constitution was they recognized the northern states still held Rev War debt, while many of the Southern states had paid theirs off.
We need to get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Dept of Ed, and a whole host of other unconstitutional programs. This could be done though a Congressional Comittee of strict constructionists appointed by conservative Congress members. They could then move to defund and remove unconstitutional laws/institutions.