The Article V Initiative: The way for the states to end Washington’s spending

Canada Free Press ^ | May 20, 2014 | By Herman Cain

[kingattax]

If you’re frustrated by the refusal of Congress to stop its fiscal insanity – and how could you not be? – it’s time to start realizing that the Constitution gives states and the people more power over Congress than most realize. And right now there is an effort called the Article V Initiative that would wield and deploy that power.

Most people don’t know, because they have never been taught, that Article V of the Constitution empowers the people through their state legislatures to propose amendments. Specifically, Article V proscribes a process in which two-thirds of state legislatures (34 total) can vote to direct Congress to call a meeting of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments.

This is not a constitutional convention, which would be for the purpose of writing an entirely new Constitution. It is solely for the purpose of voting to enact amendments. Once such a meeting of the states is called (and Congress cannot refuse if two-thirds of the states call for it), then any amendment would require a vote of three-fourths (38 total) of state legislatures for ratification.

I spoke this past weekend to the people leading the Article V initiative. They are determined to work with state legislatures to bring on board the 34 states that would call for this meeting of the states.

[Jacquerie]

Based on your posting history, I didn't expect a substantive response. You didn't disappoint.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

Yet we agree on these:

I believe the Constitution means what it says. It is not a living document, nor does it contain any penumbras or emanations.

I believe the 17th Amendment is the primary reason our government is out of control. Instead of representing the states and tempering the passions of the mob in the House of Representatives as intended, Senators are no better than three term congressmen. They are however, far more pompous and dangerous.

I believe the founding fathers had a comprehensive knowledge of western civilization, from Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas to Locke. They started with a blank slate and created, with the help of God, the best document ever written to direct the relationship of man and state to a federal government.

[Fledermaus]

Thanks Teddy Roosevelt! The Ross Perot of his time.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"We should enact a constitutional limit on spending, as Switzerland has."

If you would study Mark Levin's ideas, you would find that one of his proposals does exactly that.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"I have forgotten more about the US Constitution than you will ever know."

Well then! Please educate us, professor! We're all eyes! Tell us what we should do! Shall we elect more Republicans?

[OneWingedShark]

Not to be a negative nellie, but.....if the DC Imperium on the Potomac can not be compelled to obey existing clauses, articles and amendments....how will new restrictions fare any better?

If new restrictions are tied to their continuance in office or position of authority it becomes a very effective means of control — as an example I present my own thoughts on a fiscal responsibility amendment:

Fiscal Responsibility Amendment

Section I
The power of Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed.

Section II
The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand.

Section III
To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI).

Section IV
The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available.

Section V
The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section VI
Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold to be confiscated from a private citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall:
a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee),
b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits,
c. pay all legal costs, and
d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy.

Section VII
The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.

Section VIII
The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation.

Section 6 is where the magic happens — note that it includes the elites: USSC justices, congressmen, etc.

[OneWingedShark]

Several things spring immediately to mind:

1. The 17th Amendment deprives the States-as-entities representation.
2. The 16th Amendment allows for our screwed up income-tax system.
   (Note that I'm not against an income-tax, so long as there are no varying-rates, exceptions, exemptions, credits or withholdings.)
3. The utter twisting of the [interstate] commerce clause to allow congress to regulate intrastate- and non-commerce.
4. That there is no limit on the [magnitude of] debt that may be assumed by the federal government.
5. That the federal government may lay unfunded obligations on the states [and people].
6. That there is zero consequence for judges, congressmen, law-enforcement, or USSC justices that ignore the Constitution.

There's more than five big deficiencies.

[Strawberry AZ]

Good question, and it deserves a straight answer: Some of these proposals, if passed, would have real teeth in the form of a Constitutional Amendment... like requiring compliance under penalty of impeachment, in plain and simple English. And frankly, that's what it's come to. While Congress adheres to the Constitution only as it is interpreted by the SCOTUS, the Executive just amends the Constitution at will with the stroke of a pen. The ideas of the Founders were brilliant and their language was beautiful, but not airtight enough for today's liberal lawyers, where everything hinges on what the meaning of "is" is... we need to simplify and clarify. Not only do the states derive the authority to act from Article V, they also bear the responsibility to do so.

[Strawberry AZ]

Oh, yeah. We can trust state and local politicians and their boss constituents. [Little irony there.]

So the alternatives are to do nothing, or simply do more of the same... just keep electing conservatives. You do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you? The rude reality of the situation is that Washington, D.C. has more of an influence on our newly elected representatives than they have on Washington, D.C., plain and simple. That's the system, their system.

The Founders gave us Article V to use in the event of federal overreach, when Congress either fails or refuses to act in the best interests of the nation. Can there be a serious argument that that time has not come?

In the words of Ayn Rand: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it."

[Strawberry AZ]

Repeal of the 17th amendment would restore essential, freedom saving separation of powers between the states and the government they created.

Precisely! The states no longer have representation in DC. The Founders envisioned a bicameral legislature as The House of Representatives being the house of the people, and the Senate being the house of the states. The 17th Amendment, although well-intentioned and arguably a necessity at the time, was, with now 100 years of hindsight, a mistake that needs to be remedied.

Prohibition seemed like a good idea at the time, too. We fixed it, and by God, the world did not end, and neither did the Republic.

Simply rectifying that one error, making Senators once again answerable directly to their respective state legislatures, will push the actions of the Senate more in a direction preferred by the states that sent them there.

[familyop]

"So the alternatives are to do nothing, or simply do more of the same... just keep electing conservatives."

What conservatives? There are nearly no conservatives in politics.

Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,949,129 [Democrat] 81% [Republican] 1%”

Leviathan (Uncle Sam employs more people than you think)
National Review ^ | 02/03/2011 | Iain Murray
"...nearly 40 million Americans employed in some way by government."

Why Hillary’s high numbers (even among Republicans!) won’t last
Fox News ^ | May 19, 2014 | Howard Kurtz
"And 'nearly one-quarter of Republicans said they had a favorable view of Clinton.'"

[But we know that favor for Hillary in a sizable contingent of Republicans has lasted for decades and will last as long as those particular constituents do.]

Three-quarters of Americans think teachers paid less than they really are
Washington Examiner ^ | 9-16-13 | ASHE SCHOW
"Seventy-four percent of Americans think teachers make less than they really do, according to a new poll from Rasmussen. The average teacher salary in America is $55,000 (upward of $75,000 in Chicago), but three quarters of Americans think teachers earn less than that. Over half of Americans (52 percent) believe teachers are paid too little."

And what will such people do for influence in politics, when the recirculating debt and funny money machine stops running? Time is on the side of true private sector constituents, who have no respect for contemporary politics and want to see the whole political class laid off. It's a time for frugality and self-sufficiency to keep personal costs down.

About "70 million" people are receiving good incomes but are also steeped in debt and can't borrow more for big ticket items. Looks like the flow of cash/revenues/debt is slowing down, but it will get better with higher bond yields (and lower bond prices) soon enough.

[Strawberry AZ]

What conservatives? There are nearly no conservatives in politics.

You make my point... it's time for a change. Let's try a new idea... actually an old idea - George Mason's remedy: an Article V Convention of States strictly limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

At least that would be a good start, and it beats the hell out of sitting on our hands.

[Jacquerie]

Here is another angle. Please tell me what both of you think.

Members of society, its constituent parts participate in the government of republics.

In republican Rome, the landed families and the plebs shared legislative power. In similar fashion in Great Britain, the social orders of commons and nobles constituted law making in Parliament.

The people and states preexisted the founding of the American republic. A government was designed to act on both the people and the states, and both participated in lawmaking.

Since the major parts of society participate in republican government, it is essential the states participate in a government that has power over them.

Booting the states from the federal government made as much sense as booting the people from the House of Representatives. None.

Both are outrages, and the states MUST demand return to their rightful place in our republic.

[nathanbedford]

The repeal of the 17th amendment through the Article V movement would restore the founding fathers vision of federalism by increasing the relative power of the states within the federal system and as such it is to be desired not only because it would restore original balance but because it is salutary and necessary for the proper functioning of a federal system.

That being said, there is a small likelihood that such a repeal would find favor even in an Article V convention because it runs against politically correct notions of democracy. Since the progressive movement generations have been brainwashed that more democracy is better than less and those who favor centralized government in Washington will be sure to argue that repeal of direct election of Senators is antidemocratic. The media will certainly be against it as will the blue states.

In the Context of an Article V movement, I wonder if the prize is worth the cost of political capital. I see the main problem to be rooted in the federal income tax which acts as a fire hose pouring money into Washington which it then distributes back to the states, albeit with strings attached, as bribes. Worse, the federal government now has virtually unlimited constitutional and legal power to borrow and, until the market crashes us back to reality, these monies are also funneled out to the states so that this combination of tax funds and borrowed money creates irresistible catnip to the voters who demand more and more.

Even with the election of senators by state legislatures I don't think the human nature will radically change. In other words state legislators are not more moral than federal legislators by nature and it will not take them long to send senators to Washington who will funnel money back to state legislators to distribute. We saw this him at work in the passage of Obamacare in which Democrat senators from states like Nebraska and Louisiana brought special advantages back to their states in return for their votes. I don't think that practice will change merely because the senator is elected by cronies in the state legislature because I don't think human nature is likely to change with the repeal of the 17th amendment. The root of the problem is in the income tax and the spraying out of money.

It is conservative to attempt to effect structural reforms rather than conceive that we have the godlike power to change human nature. The founders were wary of too much democracy and that's why they limited direct participation by the public in the election of federal officials to the House of Representatives. They were preoccupied with creating a structure that would limit the damage that humans with human nature would commit if operating unchecked. So they provided some direct election to check the power of the elites and they had institutions checking other institutions. The 17th amendment distorted the system by rendering the states less able to check the federal government. But worse structural distortions have occurred by the passage of the income tax and by the accretions of laws and Supreme Court decisions.

Therefore, if it is a question of allocating limited political capital, I would like to see The Article V movement direct its energies toward reform of taxes and other structural reforms such as the requirement that regulations must be ratified by Congress . If we have ample political capital, I would certainly spend it on repealing the 17th amendment. I hope you don't find my lack of relative enthusiasm too disappointing.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

Move to Maine and help us secede, if you can and are willing to accept the risk and responsibilities that come with rights and freedom.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"Move to Maine and help us secede"

While that would probably help restore the republic (along with the simultaneous secession of the entire Northeast from Maryland on up - and take D.C. along with it), Missouri's winters are plenty cold enough for me, thank you.

[Jacquerie]

There is no doubt the typical American believes in the near sanctity of both democracy and progressive income taxes. Repeal of either would be an incredibly tough sell. All of the anti-freedom institutions would immediately align in opposition.

Still, there is a building groundswell against statism. One doesn’t have to be a conservative to see the screws tighten, to see the tandem decline of our personal/national wealth and freedom. A majority of Americans oppose Obamacare and mass amnesty. The states saw AZ border enforcement efforts get crushed. The states, as republics cannot even define marriage.

The Assembly of States will meet in about three weeks. The senior legislator of each state was asked to send at least one member from each party. Perhaps nothing will come of it, but it is worth the effort. Over a hundred legislators met last October in Mount Vernon.

As for human nature and the states, recall that federalism was generally left alone for twenty years after passage of the 17th. The federal tradition of the preceding 120 years, to avoid involvement in state police powers, held until the arrival of FDR. In similar fashion, if the 17th was repealed tomorrow, I would expect congress to conduct itself in much the same way for a period of years. However, that would change in time, when state legislators begin to feel the heat from constituents continually screwed by EPA, EEOC, FDA, HHS, DHS, Scotus, and all the other alphabet agencies with carte blanche to institute social justice. Senators from the states will have a hard time explaining why they supported judicial nominees with a track record of hostility toward the states. It will take time for citizens to realize their state rep and senator can influence Rome-on-the-Potomac.

Nothing is certain. We may collapse overnight into the hard tyranny Obama and the rats are working toward. Given their open efforts to stomp out political opposition, and rig elections, we may be past the time to save what remains of our republic.

Another obstacle, which supports your view of state immorality is the 1962 Baker v. Carr decision, in which a ham-fisted Scotus imposed one man one vote democracy on state legislatures. It is why big city constituencies dominate state government, and will work to prevent substantive reform and restoration of republican freedom.

We are on the same sheet of music. By my estimate, all good things are possible with repeal of the 17th, such as repeal of the 16th, return of legislative power to congress, and oversight of Scotus.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

" Missouri's winters are plenty cold enough for me, thank you."

After last winter, anyone who speaks the words "Global Warming" Is labeled either a democrat or an idiot, to some of us the two words are synonymous. But, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, March, and April were all below normal here in Maine. Now in May, the nights are nice but the days are only in the 50's and 60's.

By the way, I agree with you, getting rid of the North East would do a lot as far as restoring the Republic is concerned, and I promise you we here in Maine will try our level best to get Maine out of the Union.