My pre-order is in.
I pray that it REMAIN at the Number One spot for the foreseeable Future!
The left and our government don’t respect the amendments we have now. What makes anyone think that they’ll respect new amendments?
A ConCon would destroy the nation as we know it.
I doubt anyone could control the agenda, just as the those who wanted reforms to the articles of Confederation did not intend for the creation of a completely new form of government- a national/republic in which states are not sovereign but subordinate to the central government so feared by the Founders.
The outcome of a ConCon would be even a father throw into totalitarianism, of the social flavor.
As it stands, we only have stupid laws that can be changed, in time and with effort but the bedrock (the constitution) is still firm.
Regards;
There is a way to restore constitutionalism with just a single amendment. The logic behind it is that the balances of the constitution have been ruined by the 17th amendment, which will never be repealed because senators enjoy it.
If government is restored to balance, the system will methodically fix itself, restoring constitutionality and order to the country.
The disturbed balances are between the branches of government, as well as the balance between the national government, the states and the people. In addition, the constitution was oriented to limiting growth, but has no “pruning mechanism” to reduce the size and power of government once it has grown.
Importantly, the growth of national power comes from several sources, and all must be addressed. Presidential power is far too great; congress passes enormous bills with no idea of their content, which are enforced by unelected bureaucrats under the president; and finally, federal judges are able to both create laws and convert state court actions to federal law, which is a huge usurpation of power.
The way to address all of this is in some ways like a “safer” version of a constitutional convention; but in others, it is like a recreation of the original intent of the senate, as representatives of their states, not national “free agents”, acting on their own whims.
The proposed amendment creates a new body of government, a “Second Court of the United States”.
First of all, it is *not* a federal court, but a body of 100 state legislature appointed judges, with concurrent terms to that states senators.
Since it is not a federal court, it does not decide whether laws are constitutional or not; though it does consider the constitutional opinions of the federal courts of appeal. Instead, it is a “jurisdictional court”, that decides if a law in the federal court system is actually a federal issue, or if it is a state issue, returned to its state of origin.
Somewhat like a constitutional convention, if the Second Court reaches a simple majority decision, it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. But if it is decided in a 2/3rds decision, then future federal cases should take that into account. If decided by 3/4ths of the states, the decision effectively has the force of a constitutional amendment, as far as future federal court decisions are concerned. It is “stare decisis” (judicial precedent) with teeth.
The other thing the Second Court of the United States does is that it has original jurisdiction over all lawsuits between the states and the federal government. Instead of having to wind their way through several federal courts first, the states will decide lawsuits by and against the federal government.
This gives the states a tremendously powerful tool to trim and reduce the size of the federal government, if enough of them agree to do so.
bkmk
Levin’s book is an extraordinary work, but it’s also a call to action. Citizens for Self-Governance has launched the Convention of States Project to turn Mark’s call into reality. Visit conventionofstates.com for more information and to find out how you can help fix what Washington, D.C., has broken.