About Me

Name: Civis
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Why Not Petition for a Constitutional Convention?

I want to understand the pros and cons of State legislatures petitioning the US Congress for a Constitutional Convention while they are drawing up and voting on resolutions advising the federal government to respect the 10th Amendment.  My argument is a State cannot have true sovereignty to provide for the welfare of its citizens (with no federal strings) until the federal income tax burden is greatly reduced.  I will take my chances if 34 States realize the importance of federalism enough to petition for a Convention that some "radical" re-write of the Constitution would not be able to pass 38 State legislatures or conventions. 
 
I am interested in hearing arguments for and against a Convention movement.  If you are against, how do you propose a State make a stand on principle today? They can turn down federal money all day long, yet its citizens still pay into the system.
 

 The great Google has not convinced me otherwise just yet, but I am still looking:
1. Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention. (I kind of wish they failed at this one, but at least the correct process was followed and apparently Congress felt the pressure from the States voicing their will.)

2. Most recently, there has been a major movement to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. Unable to get action in Congress, supporters again turned to the convention method of amendment. To date, those behind the balanced budget amendment have convinced 32 states to submit convention petitions to Congress. Backers of the amendment need only two more states to compel Congress to call a convention.

3. Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."

Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in "participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster."

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anyone for a Nullification Crisis...


There may be no greater check on the federal government than a State or a group of States mounting reasoned and peaceful opposition to federal encroachment. By boldly challenging the right of the federal government to pass laws outside the scope of constitutionally delegated powers, the States can play an important role in limiting the centralization of power. The threat of nullification is one tool in the belt. 

The US Supreme Court is not the only entity that can challenge the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government. The States have forgotten their role as one of the checks on federal power. Instead they line up at the trough to beg for their fair share from the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. If by chance a leader arose in State government that could stand up and defend the US Constitution, a movement may be born. 

The Republicans, at the federal level, failed miserably when the opportunity was ripe for limiting the centralization of power and promoting classical liberalism. To make matters worse, it has been portrayed in the media and by the new administration that the conservative laissez-faireform of government was tried and shown to be ineffective. It is now up to the States to produce a movement to regain their sovereignty in the matters outside of national defense, foreign relations, and interstate/foreign commerce. 

There is no one size fits all solution coming out of Washington. It is arrogant for the powered elite to think they have the blanket solution that will solve the ills of a diverse and geographically dispersed people. Each State must be given the opportunity to create environments for its citizens to prosper without the central government’s excessive tax burden and string pulling. 

A nullification debate (crisis) would be healthy for our republic. The alternative is to amend the Constitution to consolidate power in the federal government and adopt a direct democracy. At least we would then be in line with our Constitution.

Federalist 10

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Federalist 46

….. should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »