Unleashing state power under Article V

David Guldenschuh is an attorney based in Rome, Ga., and a leader in the Article V movement, a nationwide effort to restrict the federal government's power and jurisdiction. He spoke to the Trib regarding the movement's progress.

A: Very few people are aware there are two ways to amend the Constitution. There's the traditional way, in which Congress proposes an amendment and then state legislatures can ratify it and if three-fourths ratify, it becomes an amendment to the Constitution. But there is a little-known gift the Founding Fathers gave to the states under Article V of the Constitution whereby state legislatures can bypass Congress and through resolutions that they've passed call for a convention of states to be held. At this convention, delegates come together from each of the states and can draft and propose amendments to the Constitution.

The Founders gave that gift to the states because they were concerned the day would come when the federal government would get too large and overreach its power and the states would need a mechanism to rein in the federal government. So the Article V movement consists of various groups petitioning state legislatures to call a convention of states to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution.

I hope President Trump supports it. I don’t think he can do that now—it would make the GOPe heads explode. He seems to understand the complete and total corruption of our political system due to career politicians’ need for money to get re-elected. He talks about them being “puppets” and being “owned”. He blasted Cruz for his financial subservience to Goldman. He excoriates Super Pacs and their corrupting influence.

As many of us realize, the only antidote is term limits—and the only way to impose term limits on Washington is through an Article V. process. I too hope the Trump phenomenon ultimately supports a Convention of States. Getting control of the executive branch while reforming the Congress would save our Republic for generations.

The door is already open under 5 federal employees with the effective power to make law and inclination not to limit their appointing masters.

Ideally we would have a Constitution that is enforceable, but that isn’t going happen when 5 federal employees can tell the rest of us what that Constitution says.

Checks and balances do not exist when one side gets to make all the rules of all the other sides, There is no more balance than there is check for that side.

The court must be made accountable. The Federal Employee’s edicts Must be restrained with in the domain of the cases before them and NOT extend to telling other elected officials what they must do with their branch of government.

I would recommend reinforcing the 11th amendment but that demented has been repealed in practiced by the Federal Court. A new system of accountability must be put in place where the Court is subjugated to State interest. We had a limited system in the appointment of judges before the 17th amendment made the U.S. Senate anther version of the U.S. House, but we lost that in 1913.

A new system must be invented to bind the interest of the court to respect the rights of the States, unless we repeal the 17th amendment. I favor State veto, if not by State legislators then by State supreme court Justices who are themselves appointed and approved by legislators.

When it comes to the issue of abuses of power, the only party that will ever reconcile such abuses is the party out of power, and against whom such power is being abused.

Impeachment is not such a grand idea when it comes to limiting power. It is at best only practical when there are clearly a criminal behavior on the part of the official which nobody supports.

If you want to check power you must check power by someone or group with a natural interest in opposing the illegitimate power.
The original presumption was that the function of the system which originally depended heavily upon all 3 branches agreeing on Federal issues, and the States cooperating on domestic matters would have the rendering the Government difficult to enforce without all officials involved agreeing with the legitimacy of the action.

That system however fell apart as the Feds acquired the means to enforce their own domestic laws, and their court’s acquired the legal means to command elected officials at the state level. (effectively nullifying the 11th amendment)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.