Replies

On a related matter, I just received this via email, (Have seen it before, maybe on FR):

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree with the message please pass it on. An idea whose time has come!

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the “government” doesn’t care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I’m asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .”

Keep it going. We need a strong showing!

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

38 states is enough to ratify an amendment; two thirds are all that is needed to call a convention. That's only 34 states.
There is great trepidation about calling a convention which could, for instance, propose to repeal or gut the Second Amendment. OTOH it is, IMHO actually conservative to promote amendments to the Constitution. That seems paradoxical, but in fact it is not. The problem we face is that the courts have been systematically mooting parts of the Constitution. Attempting to amend the Constitution the legitimate way is a statement that the Constitution means what it says until it says something else via amendment ratified by 38 states.
The article proposes to empower 34 states to overrule Congress, without imposing a high bar on Congress to overrule the states. As a practical matter I suppose that's necessary, since Congress could easily insert or remove a comma somewhere and evade any requirement for a supermajority. Yet that is an entirely unsatisfactory and inadequate curb on congressional overreach. My own preference would be for an amendment which removed the Senate from the "advise and consent" loop for confirmation of SCOTUS justices. That has done more harm than good, generally, because it has acted as a check on conservative presidents but not liberal ones. I would have an amendment which would bypass Senate confirmation for judges which the president stood before the electorate and proposed to nominate at least two months before the election which he won.
I would also have an amendment which enabled 2/3 of the states to order the retirement of any justice.
IOW, I propose that the people, via the Electoral College, determine not only the POTUS but also who could be elevated to SCOTUS - and that a supermajority of the states should determine who is not on SCOTUS. I think there would be a lively hope, under that system, that SCOTUS would apply the written Constitution of the United States in good faith to all cases brought before it.
Simply overturning an act of Congress would not necessarily bring the federal government to book. But asserting primacy of the states over the judiciary would seem likely to do it. Clearly, Congress is extremely unlikely to propose such amendments, since it would be weakening itself in relation to the states. But the mere act of convening a convention to propose amendments outside the control of Congress would enable the states to get everyone's attention. In any case, Congress should be stripped of the power to pack the court. That by itself would justify calling a convention.