Sen. David Long's Bold Play for an Article V Convention

Townhall.com ^ | November 19. 2013 | Cal Thomas

[Kaslin]

Fed up with Washington? Angry that elections don't seem to matter when it comes time to solving problems? Disgusted by the polarization that puts politicians' careers ahead of taxpayer interests? Frustrated because you don't think anything can be done about it?

Indiana State Senator David Long (R-Ft. Wayne) has experienced all of these feelings, but has chosen not to accept the status quo. He has a plan for returning power to the people where the Founders wanted it to reside.

Long is promoting an unused section of the U.S. Constitution as the ultimate check on big government. Article V provides two paths to amending the Constitution. One is through two-thirds of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. The other begins at the state level, where two-thirds of the legislatures ask Congress to call "a convention for proposing amendments." States would send delegates to this convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Then, three-fourths of the states would ratify any amendments approved by the convention, either by their legislatures or special ratifying conventions.

Long notes that the Founders wanted the states to be able to amend the Constitution as a means of checking a runaway federal government. They understood human nature and its lust for power.

In a telephone conversation, Sen. Long claims the biggest objection to an Article V convention is that those who participate might take the opportunity to engage in mischief and wreck the Constitution. But, he says, the ability of delegates to go beyond the limits set by their respective legislatures would be clearly restricted and delegates who attempt to exceed their authority would be removed.

The Indiana legislature has passed two measures that would, according to Long, "Require delegates to take an oath to uphold the state and U.S. Constitutions and abide by any instructions given to delegates by the General Assembly." It also establishes "Indiana's intention to send two delegates and two alternate delegates to an Article V convention."

Writing in Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton expressed faith in the states to control out-of-control government: "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."

Long says he has commitments from representatives of at least 26 state legislatures to attend a Dec. 7 meeting at George Washington's home in Mt. Vernon, Va. The goal is "not to decide on any amendment to be considered, but to put together a structure on how a convention will be run." Once that structure is in place, the convention would hope to establish a framework for reigning in overspending, overtaxing and over-regulating by the federal government and moving toward a less centralized federal government.

I asked him if any Democrats have signed on. "We've tried to get Democrats involved, but the Democratic Party is pushing back hard to keep any Democrats from attending." Long says while one California Democratic legislator has expressed interest, he thinks that Southern and some Western states (but not California) will get behind the idea, though he admits achieving the goal will be difficult.

Because both parties have failed to curtail the escalating size, reach and cost of centralized government, Long says, "States' rights have been trampled -- rendering the 10th amendment, (which protects state rights), almost meaningless." He adds, "The bigger modern-day threat to America is not a runaway convention, but a runaway federal government."

Call it a "Long shot," but it is one worth attempting. The Preamble to the Constitution begins: "We the people." It is the people who lend power to the federal government. If the people lend it, the people can also reclaim it when government exceeds its constitutional authority.

Sen. David Long may have discovered the only path left for attaining fiscal solvency. If he succeeds, future generations might recall Dec. 7, not only for Pearl Harbor, but for the beginning of a second American Revolution.

[Publius]

Before moving to Georgia two years ago, I lived in the Seattle area. Washington is a liberal state because on the wet side of the Cascades, the two-thirds of the population living there is urban, suburban, secular, liberal and heavily Democratic. On the dry side of the Cascades, the one-third of the population living there is agricultural, conservative, religious, heavily Mormon and Republican. In statewide elections, the wet side always wins, which is why Washington votes heavily Democratic in statewide elections. Washington is two states unhappily married at the Cascades.

First off, the Mount Vernon meeting is not the Amendments Convention. It's just a preparatory meeting to discuss how the petitions to Congress for an Amendments Convention should be worded -- the wording must be identical -- and what rules should be followed at the Convention. (Congress may try to overrule that; see my long earlier post.) Liberal states will not send representatives to Mount Vernon because they like the present system where the Feds pay for most of everything. The last thing they want is to be financially responsible for everything that goes on in their states. It's about money, not control. These states will hope that the Mount Vernon preparatory meeting leads to nothing. In their black little hearts, they no doubt wish that Obama would call out federal law enforcement to break the meeting up.

However, at the actual Amendments Convention -- assuming that 34 or more states call for one and Congress sets the time and place -- the liberal states will be there to blunt conservative changes to the Constitution. If they can find a way to get around the rules and introduce their "dream" amendments, such as repealing the 2nd and 22nd Amendments, they'll give it a whirl. They won't win, but they'll try to jam sand into the machinery.

[stevie_d_64]

“hint” received...

I am just concerned that this is not the way to go to effect the kind of changes we need in this country...The effort is well thought out, but I am concerned that it leaves the door open for some political elements in this country to really undermine this Constitutional Convention process...

I will undoubtably keep my eyes and ears peeled, and wish nothing but the best for those wanting to do this, I just feel it is a waste of time and effort at this point...And it is a distraction for the process we still have in place for next year to actually do something similar to the problem...

Nothing personal at all to you or anyone else wondering why I’m not jumping in with both feet on this...I just feel we are not quite to “that” point yet...

Regards...