A Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea

davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 06/20/11 | david limbaugh

[cc2k]

majormaturity wrote:

The key to our freedom is the 10th amendment. The states can literally end run the feds by engaging in compacts, which obviate the need for the federal gov’t. No need for conventions. No need for amendments. Just the assertion by the states, acting collectively, will do the trick. Ah, the genius of the founders...

You are correct in your assertion. The 10th amendment is the key. But the solution is more difficult than "10th amendment resolutions" and interstate compacts.

The first step is for States, Counties and municipalities to stop participating in the flow of power and money through Washington DC and the United States Government. Let me give an example: A city needs to renovate the playground in one of their parks. Councilman Jones, who represents the neighborhood where that park is located wants to propose a project to renovate the park and playground. But it will cost money. He doesn't feel confident in asking his neighbors, the people at his church and the guys down at the bowling alley or his golf buddies to pay taxes to pay for that renovation. So he calls the office of Congresswoman Sugar Momma. He says, "We need to renovate our park and playground, can you help us get a grant for this?" What he's actually saying, in plain English is, "This project isn't important enough that I feel comfortable asking my neighbors to pay for it. Can you, Congresswoman Sugar Momma, please tax the people of Wisconsin and Idaho, keep some for yourself and for the bureaucrats who will administer the money and write some ridiculous rules we have to follow, along with some federal inspectors to make sure we follow those ridiculous rules, and let us have the rest to spend on this park and playground renovation." Of course, Congresswoman Sugar Momma works a grant into the next appropriations bill, and Councilman Jones gets a plaque on a swingset in the park, thanking him for supporting/arranging for the renovation.

When this happens, the people there don't just need a new United States Representative, one who understands the limits of the Federal government and the limits of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Those people also need a new Councilman, one who also understands the limits of the Federal government and what congress is allowed to do under Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, and that asking for more is a really bad idea..

[LibertarianInExile]

I apologize if I came across as defensive. I’m irritated lately by those who are nit-picky about language without having any real interest in the change beyond providing some proof of their input. Not to imply at all that this is what you intended. It’s just that I’ve seen it happen at my place of work far too often, to the point that I might be overly sensitive to editing as a result.

Anyway, yes, I did mean a majority of three-fourths of the people—of the propertied citizens, that is, which is why I didn’t use ‘of the propertied citizens voting.’ I’d happily accept improvement of the language...not that even an ironclad amendment to that effect would make a difference if it were passed now, with the SCOTUS we’ve got around, they’d just imagine it meant something different or didn’t apply.