Replies

> “What’s the point in adding Amendments if we can’t enforce the existing ones?”

Your question is a specious one.

First, the “we” in “... if ***we*** can’t enforce ...” is not ‘we’ but is rather the ‘federal courts’.

Second, the “can’t” in “... if we ***can’t*** enforce ...” is false because the federal courts ***CAN***.

Third, the “existing ones” in “... can’t enforce the existing ones ...” is not ALL but a selected few such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme decision to use the 4th Amendment to justify killing babies in the womb. That was an egregious blow against the Constitution. But then there are plenty of rulings that uphold amendments such as the 2nd.

So your statement is not one of fact, or of a precise focus on clear egregious harm but is instead one of general frustration and possibly capitulation. That’s Ok because many people feel as you do. But the fact is the federal courts are upholding most of the Constitution’s many parts on a daily basis.

Where amendments are needed now are in those areas where time over a generation has revealed weaknesses in forming strict interpretations with original intents.

Why an Article V process needs to be formalized now is because Congress is not doing its job and the culture inside Washington DC is such that our representation will never recognize and acknowledge our grievances.

HISTORY
History has had one other movement that nearly invoked Article V. In the early 20th century there was a clear majority of states that were in the process of organizing to bring about an amendment that would end the crony corruption in statehouses as to how US Senators were chosen by state legislatures. This led to the 17th Amendment which is flawed but not without addressing a valid concern that underlies it. Let me put it this way, the 17th Amendment was an ax taken to the US Constitution when in fact a pair of tweezers would have sufficed.

The generation of 1913 was carried away with a lot of wrong headed issues in much the same way that the generation of 2008 was carried away with a leftist muslim progressive in Barack Obama. But that generation of 1913 was not so misguided as we might think when we understand more clearly the details of what unfolded (explained below).

The history of this earlier Article V ‘rumbling’ is instructive. Here are a few points:

1. Amendments can be flawed in such a way that future consequences are not factored into amendment language. This is why we need brilliant constitutional experts like Mark Levin and Ted Cruz (and so many others who are not so well-known such as Professor Randy Barnett) to take the helm of scrutinizing the language and crafting language as be maximally effective in addressing the concerns.

There is no risk, no danger in creating a ‘runaway’ convention. There is risk is allowing language that can be abused in future generations. For example, the 14th Amendment was drafted for African-Americans (referred as ‘negros’ at the time) but the final language was generalized to all people which sounds noble and highly moral but .... but no American at the time would think that one day persons that choose homosexuality as a lifestyle would force a redefinition of ‘marriage’ through the courts and create a horror of forcing Christians to serve and recognize sin, and that this movement would be supported by language of the 14th amendment.

So language is important and brilliant minds grounded in a firm knowledge of the Constitution’s history can take our general frustrations and craft language to survive interpretations and challenges.

2. The history of the early 20th century Article V ‘rumbling’ shows that Congress of that era was put into a state of shock; stunned that the People would take it upon themselves to amend their Constitution.

What did Congress do when the shock subsided and cold hard reality set in?

The answer is instructive to what we will most definitely see when our Article V embryo begins to form feet, hands and a beating heart.

Congress of the early 20th century reacted by persuading the leaders of the fledgling Article V movement to abandon it in agreement that Congress would carry it forward and propose an amendment itself.

And they crafted the language in such a way that US Senators were disconnected from their respective state legislatures and therefore could ignore state matters. And we see the results.

And really then why should there even be a US Senate? If they are not there to represent the interests of their respective state legislatures, then why are they there? Their role has evolved into one whereby the US Senator is expected to bring home the pork to cronied interests. And thus, the targeted corruption was merely diverted via other streams to bypass the original provisions of the US Constitution. Oligarchies sprung from the 17th Amendment. The 17th solved nothing.

What I have put out there is the idea of retaining the right to vote for my US Senator because in principle once I have a positive right such as a right to vote, I expect that this right shall never be taken from me.

Instead I proposed amending the US Constitution to allow state legislatures to recall the state’s US Senator. Now some have said this would lead to perpetual recall elections. That specter is false because it will force US Senate Offices to negotiate with their respective state legislatures. In the end the people of the state would have the final say over both US Senators and State legislatures via their votes.

So point number 2 above is that we should expect Congress and its leaders, now presumably Boehner and McConnell, to grab the Article V concerns when the movement appears to have legs, and ‘promise’ to do something about those concerns. In other words they will attempt to take control of it and thereby control its language, its form, its agenda and its schedule. We must not allow them to take control of our Article V movement and make it in their own image; they will corrupt it.

Lastly, many Americans do not feel confident in participating in an Article V process because it requires a high level knowledge of history and law and they think those attributes reside mostly in Congress; they would be wrong to think that. There are brilliant American scholars that can think better than legislators in Congress where there exists a thick culture of corruption. Randy Barnett comes to mind and he is actually involved in the Art V movement. With people such as him (and so many of them exist), Americans will actually begin to feel very confident in the process.

So what are we waiting for?

Funds and Leaders. We have a bit of both already but more are needed.

Lastly I will point out one other thing that follows on the heels of this last comment.

When leaders emerge (many already exist and are working on Art V), when they emerge in the public forums meaning in the news media of whatever effective form, when these leaders start to inspire confidence in ordinary Americans of the correctness and effectiveness of an Article V process, then beware that such leaders will be drafted to run for federal office.

Leaders that would strengthen and correct our Constitution could very well be taken out of the Art. V arena by their own success and the Art. V process could suffer unless the numbers of the Art. V leadership are such that plenty of other leaders would be available to carry the movement forward. In other words, a strong bench is needed.

Because for the sake of American history it is important that a full Article V process be carried to its ultimate completion in amending the US Constitution. Just having one such instance on the history books will change the culture of corruption in Washington DC for a long long time.