Most polls show that the Republicans will make gains in the House and Senate against the Democratic Party. For example, Dick Morris believes that “the Democratic Party is facing the biggest defeat in midterm elections in the past 110 years, perhaps surpassing the modern record of a 74-seat gain set in 1922″. But that does not measure the true variable of interest: the extent to which the grassroots political uprising can make changes to the structure of the system.
Changing the structure of the system is an action some on the Left call treasonous. But the Left itself has worked consistently towards changing America into the welfare states they so admire in Europe. From their point of view that kind of change isn’t “treason” but progress. JC Bennett at the National Review argues that by the beginning of the 21st century this long progressive march toward “social democracy” seemed almost within reach.
By the end of the 1970s, America stood virtually alone in a world of seemingly universal consensus for a strong managerial state. … For decades — at a minimum, since the beginning of the Progressive Era, and arguably earlier — America had been on a course toward a more centralized society … the eastern and West Coast states had gone farther with the progressive agenda than the country at large … and were therefore beacons of the future.
And then the Great U-Turn away from the Welfare State began. It started with Carter, accelerated through Reagan driven by fundamental changes in the world. Yet it may have received its greatest impetus from the most unlikely source of all: Barack H. Obama. Obama’s aggressive Hope and Change initiative came precisely at the time when it was least likely to succeed. The catastrophic effects of his policies drove the U-Turn apace. Bennett writes:
Yet no sooner had Obama and his supporters started down this road than the decentralized nature of post-U-turn America threw roadblocks in their path. Diverse “new media” prevented the administration from flooding the discussion zone with a uniform message and provided a channel for organizing protests, leading to the tea-party movement. Resurgent state governments have filed suit to overturn Obamacare, and perhaps shrink the scope of the Commerce Clause in the process. … Obama came to office hoping to found the New New Deal, but America is no longer the America of FDR. A combination of the Founders’ gift of a fundamentally decentralist Constitution and the sheer elbow room of the American continent appears to be pointing us to a third era in American history, taking the technological and civil-rights gains of the second, centralized, industrial era, but returning to the decentralized and diverse community vision of the Founding.
If any political vehicle embodies the agenda of the Great U-Turn it appears to be the Tea Party, whose avowed goals are shrinking the scope and size of the Federal Government itself not just swapping Democrat Washington insiders for Republican Washington insiders. The problem the Tea Party faces is finding a way to achieve this in the face of an entrenched political elite. Merely electing new representatives to a bloated Federal government is believed to have little chance of success because few can resist being co-opted. So the standard “radical” way forward has always been thought to run through a Constitutional Convention.
Article V of the United States Constitution stipulates how amendments can be proposed and ratified. Wikipedia notes: “Amendments may be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.”
But calling a Constitutional Convention at time of great political division has been called by some “the nuclear option” because of the potentially devastating effects: in a highly charged environment, changing the Constitution becomes a zero-sum game for one side or the other. The Left will see in it a process to amend the Constitution as an existential threat to their agenda and so, for that matter, might conservatives. Many people would like to see the Constitution changed as little as possible. Under these circumstances, is there another way forward?
One possibility is through the pervasive, but little noticed method of interstate compacts. Michael Buenger and Richard Masters describe how this method has historically been used to solve interstate problems without elevating the matter to the Federal Government. The framers of the Constitution provided several mechanisms for managing interstate relations, the Full Faith and Credit and Supremacy clauses are best known. But one of the most widely used is the mechanism of “interstate compacts”. Traditionally, these compacts have been used to adjust interstate relations without running afoul of the Federal Government. But they predate the United States itself, having been used in Colonial times to avoid having to refer relatively minor disputes to the Crown.
Since the establishment of the United States, interstate compacts have been used to govern navigation, settle fishing rights, create administrative bodies and to coordinate legislation. Under the Federal structure compacts cannot defy the will of Congress, but where Congress explictly approves them or implicitly grants them legitimacy by going along, they become part of the fabric of the land. Because of the quasi-sovereign nature of the states it is not even clear whether Congress, once it has consented to a compact and enshrined it, can easily rescind them.
Buenger and Masters point out that compacts are “binding legal contracts” and once entered into by the several states and the Federal government cannot so easily be put aside. In fact, Congress by acceding to a compact is said to be performing a political act rather than passing a strictly legal judgment. What can safely be said is that the durability of compacts remains a gray area in a very gray area.
So what would happen if several states created their own healthcare regulatory framework and established an interstate compact? Assuming that Congress approved it, what effect would it have? The compact would as someone commented, “call the question”. The states by exercising their power and obtaining approval by Congress, dare the Federal Government to take it from them. By exercising their jurisdiction, states would directly raise the question of whether President Obama’s healthcare program was usurping a prerogative that rightfully belonged to them. At the minimum, it would require a political resolution of the issue and in a manner that does not amend the Constitution.
Suppose a group of states got together and decided to fully implement a market-based system: a high-deductible catastrophic insurance program, medical savings accounts, price transparency, etc. Each state that joined the Compact would leave to the States as to the details of their legislation, but pool risk for the catastrophic insurance program.
Further suppose it was offered as an alternative to Obamacare. States could decide to stay within the Federal Obamacare system if they chose or join the State compact. States which liked neither could create an alternative compact of their own. No one would be compelled. Congress would have its say. If the States presented the Compact to Congress for ratification they would be acting in a perfectly legal manner. But an interesting political dynamic would be present. The group coming to Congress would not be private citizens but elected representatives of their respective states speaking with formal authority on behalf of their constituents. There is no way to construe it as a usurpation of authority, but it would serve to show up any real usurpation of authority by contrast.
This was a plan put to me by long-time commenter Leo Linbeck III and the singular aspects of it were evident from the first. Here was a way to raise political questions without going through the courts, without violating the Federal structure. Above all, it would be a way to return the initiative to subsidiary levels of government.
Obviously the only way to see if it will work would be to try it. And it is far from clear how it would fare. But if the Interstate Compact idea got any traction it would provide a way forward for the Great U-Turn. Who knows? As James Bennett put it, “a combination of the Founders’ gift of a fundamentally decentralist Constitution and the sheer elbow room of the American continent appears to be pointing us to a third era in American history, taking the technological and civil-rights gains of the second, centralized, industrial era, but returning to the decentralized and diverse community vision of the Founding.”
Over the past couple of years, I’ve been working on a number of fronts to try to change the dysfunctional US political system from one that is governed by a Ruling Elite to one that is self-governed by the citizens
The biggest impediment to self-governance today is our bloated, debt-fueled, over-reaching Federal Government. We have got to reverse the growth of its power, and shrink it back to a sustainable size. Washington DC spends more than $10 billion each day, and it has put future generations at risk with its profligacy. It has also intruded on many areas of life where it has no business. It is a big, bad bully.
The problem with taking on a bully is that you need to find someone stronger than the bully to help you fight. And in the case of the US Government, there doesn’t appear to be anyone stronger. It is immense, powerful, and virtually without rival.
However, there is one force on the planet that is strong enough to fight the Federal Government: the combined efforts of some, or all, of the State Governments.
The issue, then, is how to organize the states. That’s where the use of Interstate Compacts (ICs) come in.
ICs are basically agreements between states. Each state that participates in an IC passes legislation that “opts-in.” The IC is then taken to Congress, which ratifies it. There is a specific section of the US Constitution that deals with Compacts (Article I, Section 10):
So, the basic process is for a group of states to get together, reach agreement on something, and then get Congressional approval.
Now, there are a lot of ICs already out there. Some have just two states (e.g. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), and others have many states (e.g. the Driver License Compact, which includes 45 states). So the basic framework for ICs has been in place and tested, and was fully contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.
What do ICs have to do with the issue of reining in the Federal Government? Just this: Interstate Compacts are a legal, constitutional mechanism for states to organize themselves and take back power from Washington.
Let’s take, for example, Obamacare. It is very unpopular, and there is strong support for its repeal. However, how can repeal actually occur? The President will certainly veto any explicit repeal, and there are not enough votes in Congress to override the veto. Certainly elements can be defunded, or contested in court, but this process is inherently a defensive strategy, and will create – in the best case scenario – years of uncertainty before any eventual victory.
The IC route offers an alternative. States can get together and set up their own healthcare regulatory framework, and codify it in an IC. Let’s say, for example, that a group of states got together and decided to fully implement a market-based system: a high-deductible catastrophic insurance program, medical savings accounts, price transparency, etc. Each state would have the option to join the Compact for Market-Based Healthcare (CMBH), a compact that would provide significant flexibility to states as to the details of their legislation, but pooled risk for the catastrophic insurance program.
Now, for the first time, there would be an alternative to Obamacare on offer. States can decide to stay within the Federal Obamacare system, or join the State-driven CMBH. There might be some states that don’t like either, and decide to create a third alternative. The more the merrier.
Anyway, let’s say half the states decide to join the CMBH. At this point, the States would present the CMBH to Congress for its ratification. Included in the CMBH would be an explicit statement that with regard to healthcare regulation in the member states, the CMBH would pre-empt Federal regulation. Essentially, this is like creating charter schools in the education sector; they are exempt from many of the normal regulations that apply to school districts.
Also, when presenting the CMBH to Congress, there is an interesting political dynamic at work. The group coming to Congress are not private citizens; they are elected representatives of their respective states. They can speak, therefore, with formal authority on behalf of their constituents.
Additionally, there is an even more important aspect to the ratification process. Each Congressional delegation will be confronted by state legislators who want to be carved out of the Obamacare system. This fact – that state legislators are delivering the message – puts Congress in an awkward spot. If they defy the state legislators and the citizens of their state, they are alienating voters and aiding their potential political rivals: the state legislators themselves. Most state legislators would love to run for Congress. If Congress rejects the CMBH, they are handing their future opponents the issue to beat them with.
The key here is that the use of ICs in this manner is a political strategy, not a legal strategy. But it is nevertheless a mechanism that allows for states to take power back from the Federal Government, one that stops short of calling an Article V Constitutional Convention. And, if for some reason the Supreme Court strikes down an IC as unconstitutional, the states and Congress can amend the Constitution to allow for the compact. After all, if there is political support for the IC, there will be political support for an Amendment.
Why not use an Amendment process then? Well, for one thing Amendments really are driven by Congress, not the states.
Another thing about ICs: they don’t require Presidential approval. The Constitution says only that Congressional approval is required.
However, because a Presidential signature is not required, we should go ahead and seek one. The message would be “If you don’t sign this, we will move forward without you. So you really should sign, for the sake of your Presidency.” Such a signature would be the symbolic surrender of the Ruling Elite to the people. It would be like Shigemitsu surrendering to MacArthur on the deck of the USS Missouri.
In any event, ICs are a pretty radical approach to change, especially since they have broad applicability. For instance, environmental regulation could be done via an IC; offshore drilling rights; food and drug regulation; practically any Commerce Clause regulation could be carved out and delegated to an IC.
An important final point: this approach is not like nullification or secession. Those approaches involve rejection of Federal authority. Interstate Compacts, on the other hand, explicitly accept Federal supremacy by virtue of their seeking Congressional approval – after all, you only go to your superiors to seek approval, right?
So, the use of Interstate Compacts may be radical, but they are not seditious. They are a mechanism for the will of the sovereign citizens to be expressed through their elected state legislators for the purpose of reining in the power of the Federal Government. Even Hamilton, strong proponent that he was of a powerful central government, maintained that the final check on the power of the Federal Government was the states:
Madison, as well, looked to the states to protect the people against an out-of-control Federal Government:
I think the use of Interstate Compacts, then, represent an innovation that has its roots in the Constitution, and the spirit of self-governance from whence sprung the United States of America. This use is radical in the same way that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were radical; the notion that “We the People” might form a Government that derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”
I am working with a multi-state group that is drafting a variety of interstate compacts and model legislation for enabling them. We plan to have these materials ready to go after the election.
In the mean time, reach out to your local Tea Party or other local citizens group, and together contact your state legislators/candidates, and let them know that you expect them to stand for your state against the intrusions of the Federal Government, and that interstate compacts are a powerful tool for that purpose. Put them on notice that if they don’t stand up against Washington, you will work to run candidates against them in their next primary election.
The Tea Parties have demonstrated that primaries are the Achilles’ Heel of the incumbent Ruling Elite. Use this fact against them.
The choice before all incumbents, then, will be to surf the tsunami of political devolution, or get swept aside by it. And the surfboard is the use of Interstate Compacts to take power back from the Federal Government.
Spread the word. The times, they are a changin’
Leo,
Does this mean that a majority of both chambers of Congress have to vote in favor of an IC to make it work?
The way things are deteriorating right now, I wouldn’t be surprised someday to see state blocs begin to do things like this unilaterally.
I think the Article 5 is better. Mainly because Amendments are always a compromise. The Left would win some, the right would win some. Each winning what they thought most important. Since we already have a constitution, it wouldn’t be a deal killer to kick the can down the road in some cases.
Amendments are also hard to change. Congress has passed so many ‘balanced budget’ acts that it takes a whole library to hold them. A balanced budget amendment would end that game.
The goal should be to put controls on government. ONLY a constitutional convention can do that, Any Law passed by the states would last until it became a hindrance, then congress would write a law to replace it. They can’t do that with an amendment. If you are going to bell the cat, fasten it well, so the cat can’t take it off the first time it feels sneaky.
cadams,
Does this mean that a majority of both chambers of Congress have to vote in favor of an IC to make it work?
For the kind of IC we’re talking about here – one that creates a carve-out for states – yes.
States can form ICs without the consent of Congress, if they don’t impose on Federal supremacy. But we want to force Congress to give up authority it has claimed from the states. So going to Congress is really important.
It is also the “put up or shut up” moment for states and state legislators. We must demand that they take back this authority, or we will replace them in the next election (or sooner, for those states that have the right of recall).
And when they take it back, they have to solve the problem. But we get 50 opportunities to solve it, and will end up with 50 different solutions. And there will be a powerful incentive to innovate to out-compete the other states.
Which is the point. The states work for us, not vice-versa. As a consumer of government, I want competition.
That will only happen if we bust the trust that is the Federal Government. And ICs are a way to do just that.
Cheers,
L3
stoicheion,
ICs and Article V are not mutually exclusive. But there has never been an Article V convention. There are hundreds of ICs.
Besides, constitutional amendments are not all-powerful. After all, the Tenth Amendment is a constitutional amendment…
Cheers,
L3
Gentlemen -
Thank you; neat idea.
ICs may well be a home run. Competition, and let free choice win. I think it fits better with a federal, republican system.
I don’t see how this addresses the impact of Federal income tax rules on health care – deductibility of charges and who get to own those deductions.
For example, corporations can deduct their health care insurance costs for their employees; individuals, not so much. ObamaCare further limits availability of high-deductible health plans and medical savings accounts.
How would you address that issue, or is the political _fact_ of the IC the point, or am I missing something?
Like the idea that anything within the IC – including modified tax law – is signed off by Congress, is implemented within the IC states, and folks get the system they’d generally fancy?
The ruling class quivers, just see how they quake
They’re shaken and trembling and stirred
Excalibur is freed from imprisoning lake
By our own Leo Linbeck the Third
A combination of the Founders’ gift of a fundamentally decentralist Constitution and the sheer elbow room of the American continent appears to be pointing us to a third era in American history,
A combination of the Founders’ gift of a fundamentally decentralist Constitution and the sheer elbow room of the American continent appears to be pointing us to a third era in American history,
… is repeated in the blog entry above, too.
Perhaps.
Obama’s aggressive Hope and Change initiative came precisely at the time when it was least likely to succeed.
I must disgree, Obama’s Hoke and Clang came directly with the biggest failure in the capitalist system since maybe ever. That was the time most open to change, when things are already shattered and broken. But Obama is a historic boob, none of his numbers worked, none of his rationales was coherent much less popular, and he is quickly making bad ideas ridiculous.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Leo: How exactly would this preclude Obamacare? Wouldn’t such a compact simply layer on top of it? My understanding is that Obamacare and the new financial regulations are stuffed full of individual rules that apply regardless of what else states (e.g., Massachusetts) are themselves doing or might do in those areas. The penalty for having “too much” or “too little” health insurance, for example, would still be determined by and collected by the IRS on an individual basis, even if a taxpayer resided in a state that had a compact which provided a superior alternative.
My understanding is also that there are built-in penalties for any state that gets “uppity”, in the form of serious losses of federal funding (paid for, of course, with the state’s own citizens’ money, along with that of their children and grandchildren).
How do we get around those issues?
I think that I shall never see
A tax as lovely as a tea
For tax is made by fools like B,
But we the people are the tea.
Ed Bosco,
corporations can deduct their health care insurance costs for their employees; individuals, not so much
Good question. Of course, the best way to address this is to eliminate all payroll taxes and go to a consumption tax like the FairTax…
To answer this question will require more research, which we have underway. But we should, in my opinion, treat healthcare expenditures the same way, regardless who is providing them. There should be no advantage for a company to provide healthcare vs. an individual.
And the company is really indifferent here. It is the employee who really wants the company to provide health insurance, because employees are not taxed on that benefit. If it costs $5,000 per year to provide health insurance, the company is indifferent between $5,000 of insurance and $5,000 of cash compensation. But the employee does not pay taxes on the insurance, so they’d rather have the benefit.
But from the standpoint of the IC, I think it could contain language like “Any healthcare expenses paid by residents of Member States, shall be tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.” Once Congress approves the IC, it is federal law, and the IRS would have to adjust accordingly.
Obviously, there are a lot of details to work out. But what an IC provides is a vehicle for working out those details by the states, outside of Congress, but ultimately approved by Congress and therefore constitutionally binding.
Cheers,
L3
Big D,
How exactly would this preclude Obamacare? Wouldn’t such a compact simply layer on top of it?
No. Imagine an agreement that had a statement like this in it:
The wording is just indicative; I’m not a lawyer. But the idea is to craft an agreement that basically allows all Member States to trump Federal healthcare legislation. The compact is binding Federal law, so with a “supremacy” clause like the above, it would clear the decks for states to do as they please (although they would still have to comply with the Constitution, of course). Again, lots of details to work out.
Incidentally, life insurance, annuities, disability income, and long-term care insurance are regulated by 36 states that are signatories to the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact. So it’s not a big jump to have healthcare regulated in a similar fashion.
At the end of the day, this is still just a mechanism for forcing a political solution.
After all, legislatures make laws, so if the political will is there, we can make the law work.
Cheers,
L3
I think I’m missing something:
What’s to preclude Congress from jealously hanging on to all they have won, as per usual, and refusing to approve?
Doug,
What’s to preclude Congress from jealously hanging on to all they have won, as per usual, and refusing to approve?
That’s the key question. What do you think of this answer:
If Doug and Leo wander up to Washington, and demand a meeting with our Representative, we might get it. But, at the end of the day, that’s one representative out of 435. Our chances with Senators are even less. And even if we meet, they have no incentive to listen to us. Who sent us? Who elected us? Nobody.
But if a state legislature passes a law approving their entry into a compact, and it gets sent to Congress, there’s a different dynamic. First, the Governor and State leadership meets with the entire congressional delegation to demand their support. Second, they meet as representatives of the people. Third, and most importantly, they meet as political allies and potential rivals. If the Congressman defies Doug and Leo, we’re no threat. But if he defies the State Legislature, he will draw an opponent in the next primary.
The beauty of this is that we’re asking state legislators to make themselves more powerful, at the expense of Congress. The state legislators will like that. And if Congress doesn’t approve, we will have to beat them in the 2012 primary – and there will be plenty of candidates in a position to do it.
And, finally, if Congress defies the will of the elected officials, there’s always the “nuclear option” of Article V.
Anyway, the bottom line is that this works only if there is political will at the state level. But that’s a lot easier to cultivate than political will at the federal level. After all, what monopolist has ever willingly ceded his power?
Like Jock Ewing told Bobby after J.R. recovered from his gunshot wound and returned to his CEO position,
“Bobby, somebody gives you power you got nuthin’. Real power’s something you take!”
Cheers,
L3
L3. brilliant.
Doug. As Leo sort of mentioned earlier in #1, if they refused to agree to the states’ requests – officially presented by duly elected state legislators – they would be PUBLICLY acknowledging their own greed and badness. Pretty hard to imagine too many of them would ever be re-elected in those states after that.
But that supposes enough states come together on the compact to apply significant pressure. If only a few respond, you have a point.
Sounds intriguing in theory, Leo. Unfortunately I don’t see state legislatures as being competent or unified enough to pull it off.
Sounds good, thanks.
—
feeble:
Perhaps observing the horrible trainwrecks to come in states like California will provide plenty of incentive for states like Texas to take the effort to avoid a similar fate.
Governor Perry enjoys going hunting these days in California for businesses being forced out by government intrusion and legalized theft.
SOCAL was once the aerospace capital, now but a shadow, and Northrup and Boeing are presently preparing their exits.
49er Dweet,
The key, IMO, are the Tea Parties, 912 Groups, et. al.
The Tea Parties exposed the soft underbelly of the system: primaries. This has the Ruling Elite of both parties very, very nervous (did you see Karl Rove’s attack of O’Donnell after her primary victory? It was Olbermann-esque). Fear is in the air.
The question they all want to know is: what do the Tea Parties want? The Republican establishment is trying to tempt the Tea Party to come into a “big tent” Republican Party. If the Tea Parties “take over” the Republican Party, they will lose because they will have decided to fight on the enemy’s territory.
Instead, the Tea Parties should tell the Washington Ruling Elite of both parties, “Here’s what we want: unconditional surrender. We want you to return the authority you have taken back from the states and the citizens over the past 100 years. You go back to defending our nation against foreign threats, protecting our interests abroad, and the Constitutionally-enumerated powers. That’s it. The rest comes back to us.”
ICs are simply a mechanism for calling this question. Because Congress is a monopoly, they control the agenda in Washington. But ICs are a way to put issues on the table; smart bombs, to go with the nuclear weapon of a Constitutional Convention.
Some of the questions they could call:
Why not have the Gulf Coast states create an Offshore Drilling Compact?
Why not have the Western states create a Federal Land Use Compact?
Why not have all of the states create a separate regulatory regime for cancer drugs, so that promising new drugs for really lethal cancers can get to the clinic faster?
Why not have the border states create a Border Enforcement Compact that creates rules and accountability for protecting our borders?
Why not have states create their own environmental regulatory framework, and get rid of the EPA?
Why not have states develop their own securities regulation system, or banking system?
The possibilities are legion. They are limited only by the competence of the Federal Government and the tolerance of the citizenry for Federal incompetence.
In other words, they are practically without limit.
Cheers,
L3
feeblemind,
I don’t see state legislatures as being competent or unified enough to pull it off.
The only way is if the Tea Parties demand it, and primary them out if they refuse. Think of it as outsourcing competence.
Seriously, the average US Representative or US Senator is scared of the Tea Parties. Imagine their effect on a State Representative or State Senator.
There will be legislation they will be asked to pass. All they have to do is vote “aye”. Very little competence will be required beyond that.
One final note: State Legislatures are used to being pretty much ignored except by lobbyists and special interest groups. If they suddenly get the attention of Tea Parties, they’re gonna be pretty overwhelmed. They can choose to be champions or chumps. But we will know what they decide, and act accordingly.
Cheers,
L3
I’m with Doug @ 13.
Also, interstate compacts are no panacea. The Milk Compact is a essentially a Congressionally-approved cartel to fix milk prices for the benefit of a few States, to the cost of all the citizens. It’s a conspiracy between levels of government against the people.
There’s a second power which can confront the Feds – the US electorate. And I think they’re waking up to the scam. We simply need to cut the Fed down to size directly in order to reduce the aggregate amount of political power in this country. Simply transferring responsibility for ObamaCare from the Feds to the States doesn’t make the citizen any more free. Old boss, new boss, yada yada.
I think the center of gravity the Tea Party should attack are the election and campaign finance laws. Those aren’t the big issues of the day but they are the gates that keep the Dem-GOP duopoly in power decade after decade. We must storm those gates and tear them down. Only then will Congress become functional, as its members represent the People once more instead of the institutional power-brokers in D.C., New York and L.A. that fund the campaigns.
No, Richard. Long term it would not work. It would present an interesting politcal dynamic; it may present a short term solution but in the end it would give the statist some much needed breathing room and when the time was right they would simply abrogate it. I know a constitutional convention is a two-edged sword, the results may not be to my liking. We have finally come to a point in out Federalist system where we need to settle some issues. The commerce clause, the 16th amendmant, the Federal Reserve have made void most of the protections of the original constitution (and the first ten amendments). The current crop of Democrats have clearly shown their contempt for the concepts of Constitutional government. We have to decide where we are going as a nation. Putting a bandaid over the problem will only kick the can down the road for a short while. Remember the last Democrat president declared “the era of big government is over”. That lasted, what…really not even eight years.
No, not a bandaid, a Constitutional Convention.
Brock,
We simply need to cut the Fed down to size directly in order to reduce the aggregate amount of political power in this country. Simply transferring responsibility for ObamaCare from the Feds to the States doesn’t make the citizen any more free. Old boss, new boss, yada yada.
Perhaps you’re right. However, it’s also possible that once the authority is transferred to the states, they will have to compete, which will drive the system towards one that is responsive to citizens (otherwise the citizens vote with their feet).
And the idea of ICs is to do precisely what you suggest: reduce the aggregate amount of political power. Diffusing the power decreases its aggregate, in the same way that concentrating it increases it. Power is like pollution: the solution to pollution is dilution.
If the old boss is a monopoly, and there are lots of new bosses, all competing for my employment, wouldn’t that be a welcome development?
Cheers,
L3
Black Bart,
Long term it would not work.
Long term nothing works. But if we could get another 100 years out of this system, that would be a pretty good outcome.
I have no doubt that this movement will end with Constitutional amendment. Every major social change period had amendments (Revolutionary War, Civil War, Progressive Era, Civil Rights Era). But the amendments came at the end, after the political war was fought and won. They solidified and codified the victory; they did not cause the victory.
If it comes to a Article V Convention, so be it. But that is going “all in” for both sides. The idea is to take the issues you describe – commerce clause, etc. – through compacts first.
Anyway, I’ve probably argued too strongly for the idea tonight. It’s just an alternative; it’s not like I own the patent on interstate compacts. But if it’s a way to rally the troops, what’s the downside? If it moves a big chunk of authority from Federal to State Government, why not give it a whirl?
Regardless, I appreciate the feedback and will now turn in for the night. More tomorrow, perhaps.
Cheers,
L3
Huzzah for your forward-thinking, L3! This is what we MUST continue doing after November. There must be no hanging up our spurs after the election; instead, the cavalry must charge into the reeling “enemy” and apply the saber. We must, as Dan Morgan wrote after the battle of Cowpens — “augment their astonishment.”
One benefit of your IC proposal — a HUGE benefit — is that it blunts the statists’ certain-to-come cries and Obama’s predictable demagoguery that we can’t cut government — entitlements, including the new ObamaCare — without harming old people and poor people. Your IC proposal shifts debate from “cutting” to “efficiency” and “local control.”
I think this is brilliant. The Progressives have a point when they sneer that many of the senior citizens in Tea Parties will sing a different tune if they get fooled into thinking smaller government means less Medicare and SS for them (never mind that Ryan’s and other proposals address younger people’s benefits). Consider the woman at a Tea Party rally holding a sign that read, “Big Government Hands off my Medicare!”
And don’t we all know that’s Obama and the Dem’s intended battle plan? Don’t we all foresee a president who digs in his heals after 2010 and goes full-bore Huey P. Long? Don’t we know mainstream media will run headlines — “GOP plans to end Medicare and SS?”
Fight, fight, fight. Don’t let up after 2010.
To Leo Linbeck III
“Of course, the best way to address this is to eliminate all payroll taxes and go to a consumption tax like the FairTax…”
I think drastically not. The gilt to pay for whatever government does has to come from what we produce, which may not be the same as we consume. An income tax return that fits on a postcard, implementing the most flat % tax possible, ideally one which eventually has no deductions whatsoever, no tax shelters possible; is the most fair way to do it, and the one with the fewest problems.
To stoicheion:
“The Left would win some, the right would win some. Each winning what they thought most important.”
That doesn’t sound very good at all–the whole problem is what the left has won which is in derogation either to common sense, the constitution, and then there it what it has won which most people feel to be genuinely evil. As long as we can get to 51% or any non-cheatable majority–to hell with the fragment to the left.
They can pound sand.
To Leo Linbeck III
I can not conceive of the most important parts of the CMBH being accepted by the leftists in the country without a virtual constitutional cannon being held to their heads…the taxation and budgeting process would have to be interfered with such that the people of the states opting for the CMBH paid no federal taxes into Obamacare, and people moving between the states in and out of Obamacare were held to the contracts they were entered into by means of the acceptance of their state of origin into either the CMBH or it’s remaining in Obamacare.
The Tea Party movement must culminate in a Constitutional amendment which would represent “Winning the Battle of the Republic.” As things now stand the American Marxists are “Winning the Battle of Democracy.” Try as we might to win the battle of democracy the lower parts of human nature will inevitably produce a lazy proletariat class willing to sit in the barn eating the corn provided by the Pigs of Animal Farm (Marxist Government) who steal the corn from those who are actually doing the labor (the middle class). The Proletariat class will vote for the Marxists. As time goes by more and more of those laboring in the fields become demoralized and exhausted; many finally end up in the barn themselves. In the end a majority of people are in the barn and the Marxist-Proletariat coalition wins “the battle of democracy;” they are in a position to win all elections. When there are finally too few people laboring to support the entire population hunger and anarchy ensue. A “dictatorship of the proletariat” (code for dictatorship of the Marxist ruling class) then “comes to the rescue.” At that point the barn-riding Proletariat class (now the vast majority living in serfdom) is ordered at gunpoint back into the fields. I believe Karl Marx was an evil genius; he figured out a way to defeat a democracy – Marxism will finally “win the battle of democracy.” We are not a democracy, and we must prove this to ourselves and to the World by amending our Constitution with anti-Marxist poison – anti-Marxist law.
“The proletariat (lazy animals) will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie (working animals), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state (Marxist Pigs)… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois (middle class) individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at… We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the (non) working class is to raise the proletariat (lazy animals) to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The Declaration of Independence is the supreme un-amendable moral law of the United States of America
Section 2. Term limits for Congress (shorter) and the Supreme Court (longer)
Section 3. Federal taxation under Amendment XVI shall not exceed 10% for any individual, nor shall Federal taxation under Amendment XVI exceed 10% of the nation’s GDP
Section 4. Federal income shall only consist of 10% domestic taxation as per Section 3 regarding Amendment XVI, plus foreign tariffs, plus the sale of domestically purchased bonds by U.S. Citizens
Section 5. Federal spending shall not exceed federal income. Federal income shall not occur through borrowing or self-creation of money.
Section 6. Amendment XVII is hereby revoked
Section 7. Supreme Court decisions shall be revoked by Congress with 2/3 or greater vote in both houses.
Section 8. Article I, Section 8 shall be changed to: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, and provisions for general welfare shall be uniform throughout the United States and innumerated herein this Constitution; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and to regulate disputes of commerce among the several states…”
When Federal government is placed back into its smaller non-God-like box – when Federal government gets only 10% – the States (empowered and limited by their own 10% taxation) would find themselves positioned to take over (or share with private charities) all social programs now un-Constitutionally administered by Federal government: Social Security, Healthcare, Education, etc., etc. Limiting Federal taxation to 10% would have the effect of resurrecting the 10th amendment – resurrecting State government – resurrecting the Bill of Rights – resurrecting the Constitution. With such an amendment “We the People” will finally become “masters of both Congress and the Courts” – masters of our own destiny.
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
LL3, #22: Perhaps you’re right. However, it’s also possible that once the authority is transferred to the states, they will have to compete, which will drive the system towards one that is responsive to citizens (otherwise the citizens vote with their feet).
Slightly OT, am I the only one here who thinks the concept of “voting with your feet” is a bit overrated? Seems to me that’s only an option if there aren’t some strong non-political factor(s) (extended family ties, your job, etc.) in place against you pulling up stakes. People may “vote with their feet” if/when they have nothing else of value to lose by doing so, but would that really make for a large enough migration potential to get most politicians’ attention?
Reverting to previous topic, when I express doubt there is a Pakistan for us to be at war with, I should have mentioned what this article points out, that elements of Pakistan *are* our friends.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/30/pakistan-quietly-aids-drone-attacks/
Pakistan is at war with itself, not in control of large parts of its territory, barely in control even in the best of parts, and as long as it remains predominantly muslim seems unlikely to improve.
I think it correct that the only realistic and practical counter to an out of control Federal government is the States. We do have a Constitution which defines a Republic of individual states after all and nothing new must be created out of thin air to make that happen.
Changing seats from D to R in Washington would be helpful only in so much that conservative Rs would likely not fight the States’ insurgency as much as the Ds which are totally dependent on a centralized apparatus to keep themselves in power.
Rather than a Constitutional Convention we need a Constitutional Crisis where one or several States flat out refuse to fulfill a Federal mandate. So much the better if the US Supreme Court rules at loggerheads with a State Supreme Court. That is the only thing that will move States Rights off the block and put the conversation in the public square.
Leo Linbeck III
Oh, yeah. State based ‘market’ socialism, vs. federal ‘market’ socialism.
New and improved with more bright savings power and spa vacations added!.
….
NO restraint on liberty or trade. No state licencing power. No state money for Medi Care/caid, et al.
The root is money and power, strike the root, don’t just replant the weeds in a new pattern.
“Besides, constitutional amendments are not all-powerful. After all, the Tenth Amendment is a constitutional amendment…”
Any system can be gamed, a correlative being that if you can’t game it, it’s not a system.
Congress has to defend the Constitution from the other branches of government, Judges that trash the Constitution should be impeached. Bureaucrats that trash the Constitution should be impeached. Presidents that ignore their Constitutional limits should be impeached. Congress critters that won’t defend the Constitution ( and America by doing so) need to be replaced.
The Framers didn’t know it but the 5th Amendment is a system reboot. Or it can be. When the system gets old and more patch then program, a reboot to re-establish defaults is generally a good thing.
I see state based initiatives as just another patch. Something to keep the beast running until there is time for a restore. Plus you will need to do them over and over again. Once for each issue. A 5th AC offers the opportunity to use a net to catch the fishies instead of doing them 1 at a time. Sniper vs. Machine gun.
“Rather than a Constitutional Convention we need a Constitutional Crisis where one or several States flat out refuse to fulfill a Federal mandate.”
You mean like 1860? That didn’t work out so well, IIRC.
29. Joshua “…“voting with your feet” is a bit overrated?”
In the short-term it is, but over the long haul it makes an impact.
One of the big factors in the decline of the UAW is that the Big Three (does anybody remember them) voted with their feet and moved factories to different states (heck GM started Saturn in the South as a “union free” experiment). The workers, facing uinemployment in Michigan, voted with their feet and moved south as well.
The end result of this was the decline of the power of unions in Michigan. The population shift has been strong enough that both Detroit and the state in general are shrinking. It has gotten Lansing to take a look at the generally anti-business climate here and start (I emphasise start) to make Michigan a place you would wish to open a business in.
One of the reasons that California is in trouble is that they have made it a place that is anti-business/anti-entrepreneur thus both have either left or never showed up. From that point the tax base crumbled. The resulting financial crisis has gotten the pols attention, it remains to been seen if they respond in an effective and worthwhile manner.
L3′s point in #14 may be the most important one: first, in pointing out the force of political legitimacy when bringing force to bear on officials elected to federal office; and second, in correctly identifying the state political establishments as the Achilles heel of DC’s entrenched political elite. Before the 17th Amendment, no Senator would dare cross the Governor or legislature of his or her state if they wanted reappointment. As some have repeatedly noted, this is why political movements should focus on states’ political systems as much or more than on federal offices. Using the insurgency parallel that some have alluded to, the political force represented in DC, the coastal corridors, and the largest cities can’t be present everywhere at once. They are not well-equipped to deal with a decentralized but system-wide attack.
The fact is that state governments, state politicians, and state bureaucracies are more easily taken over than the Federal Government. Washington has erected enormous barriers to prevent the citizens from dislodging the Ruling Elite. Cost of campaigns alone are a huge barrier; the average US House district is about 700,000 people. But there are about 6,000 state house districts, so we’re talking about 50,000 per district.
In my home state of Texas, districts are about 100,000 people. But the average primary election is only about 10-15,000 voters, and when there is a race that is contested, the margin of victory is often less than 1,000 votes. This means that a citizens’ group (Tea Party, etc.) that organized voters could, with some effort, change the outcome single-handedly.
Problem is that most primaries are uncontested. About 80% of incumbents run for re-election (for state seats) and 77% of those have no primary opponent. This means that they effectively “own” their seat.
By contesting them, making them compete, by “primarying” them, citizens can exert significant power over their state governments. The Tea Parties have figured out the power of primaries, they just need to realize that the real opportunity is in the states.
The problem is: who cares? State governments are treated as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal government.
But that is what needs to change, and the opportunity presented by compacts. Defiance is also a strategy, but only a defensive strategy. Texas is doing this on environmental regulation, but eventually, unless there is a political change, we will not be able to hold the fort, so to speak. Federal law trumps state law. So we need a way to go on offense.
Compacts give states a way to go on offense. They do it within the Constitution. They are legal, and long-standing. They give people specific issues to rally around.
The idea that simply replacing one group of politicians with “our guys” or “good guys” will make things better is delusional. What we need to do is pit one group of politicians against another.
Now I’ll go out on a really long limb: I think traditional liberals will sign onto this program. Why?
For the simple reason that they will never again have the power they’ve possessed in the past 2 years. Never, certainly not in their lifetime, will they hold the Presidency, a filibuster-proof Senate, and a commanding House majority. They face a long period in the Federal desert, as they watch Republicans and their corporate paymasters roll back their progressive dreams.
This means they need to sound the retreat, and fall back behind their firewalls.
They need to protect their blue states.
So we have a historic convergence about to occur, where conservatives want to break the Ruling Elite and their Federal leviathan, and liberals want to protect their enclaves of progressive European government in blue states.
They can unite together on a policy of devolution.
Politically, here’s how it might work. Imagine a situation where two big healthcare compacts are created: one, in which states heavily regulate the system, another where it is more market-based. And maybe a third where it is a hybrid. States choose which compact they want to sign onto, and then all of these compacts are taken to Congress for ratification.
Congress would have to approve this. All of the states, demanding ratification. To do otherwise would invite an Article V convention, or worse.
And then the states would begin to compete, as would the major compacts. Once the stranglehold over policy is broken, who knows what policy landscape would evolve.
All I know is that there would be a choice, and the trust would be busted.
Let a thousand points of light bloom.
(Or something like that.)
L3
I have just one question for Leo.
What prevents the courts from mucking up the “interstate compact” process through their usual ultra-elastic “living document” methods of interpreting the Constitution? Just look at what they’ve done with the Commerce Clause.
“Problem is that most primaries are uncontested. About 80% of incumbents run for re-election (for state seats) and 77% of those have no primary opponent. This means that they effectively “own” their seat.”
That’s why I advocate “None of the Above” for every position on all ballots. The citizenry won’t need to field an opponent to vote a rascal out.
In the WWII era, the German Wehrmacht had a saying: “Better no officer than a bad officer.” We don’t need “bad officers” in elected positions.
Nice idea, L3. However, it fails to grapple with the real source of the power & the problem — all the money (for practical purposes) flows through Washington. Even my little itty-bitty County government gets about 3/4 of its funding in the form of grants from State & Federal Governments.
As long as the Federal Government collects the taxes and decides how to distribute revenues, the Feds will be in charge.
How do we do something about that? Could there be a way for the State Governments to take over the tax collection duties of the IRS? Could States require companies and individuals to send their federal taxes to the States for forwarding to the Feds? Once the States have a chokehold on the revenue stream, things would change.
LL3, that’s a nice observation in #37 about the convergence of political interests in the wake of large Congressional losses for the Democrats in November. Devolution, as goal in itself, for reasons you’ve outlined, just might gain support in unexpected places. Self-interest can be remarkably motivating. Or, as Mr. Johnson once put it, “The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully”.
I think it’s absolutely brilliant, Leo. It is the first workable plan I have seen for breaking the logjam – the problem with Article 5, of course, is that it has to start with 2/3 majorities in BOTH houses and I just don’t see that happening. I also don’t see enough states ready yet to call for a convention, which means the amendment pathway at this time is a dead end. but THIS – this could work.
And I think you’re right, liberals/progressives will have a strong incentive to sign on to the project after November.
Re:23. Leo Linbeck III,
I also appreciate your detailed and cogent response. You are coming up with ideas that may, as you say, preserve our system for another hundred years. I may not agree with the method but at least your are trying.
My problem with this idea is that it cedes to much territory to the opposition. For instance, you detail in your first message that this idea could be used to thwart the takeover of the US health system by forming regional Interstate Compacts. But in out Federalist system, individual States already have that authority. If a State has to ask permission, then they do not actually have that authority, and of course the same would go for an IC. The constitutional justification for Obamacare was first the Commerce Clause and after it was passed, the taxing authority of the Federal government. My fear is that if the various states get together to implement Obamacare in their own way, it will lend an air of legitimacy to the whole Act. So that when it gets to the Supreme Court, and they are to rule on Obamacare’s constitutionality, it may already be the defacto law of the land.
Sorry, I am too long winded. All that said, I realise what you are proposing is a politcal solution and in the end it may well be the most practical and effective way of realising our mutual goals.
L3@1 said ”I am working with a multi-state group that is drafting a variety of interstate compacts and model legislation for enabling them. We plan to have these materials ready to go after the election.
In the mean time, reach out to your local Tea Party or other local citizens group, and together contact your state legislators/candidates, and let them know that you expect them to stand for your state against the intrusions of the Federal Government, and that interstate compacts are a powerful tool for that purpose.”
Good for you!
Based on my own experience with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), I am firmly of the view that ICs can provide the most effective path for recovery from our bloated and increasingly ineffective federal government at this time.
The IOGCC was created in 1935 in response to concerns about excessive “one size fits all” regulation from Washington. During the years when the major companies dominated US production, they tilted the balance toward the federal approach, but as the majors have disappeared or fled the US in recent years, leaving domestic production to smaller independent producers, the IOGCC is increasingly in position to take the lead.
Right now, the IOGCC is the point of the spear in maintaining momentum for the production of unconventional gas via directional drilling with associated hydraulic fracturing – the technology which has been proven so successful in the Barnett shale in the Fort Worth basin in Texas. The Energy Act of 2005 had (with IOGCC input) amended the safe drinking water act to place control of hydraulic fracturing in the hands of the states, but starting last year efforts began in congress to return control to the federal government. If the IOGCC loses on this issue, the “one size fits all” federal approach will likely limit and may possibly kill the opportunity we now have to dramatically increase domestic production of unconventional gas. I note that Texas Governor Perry is head of the IOGCC in 2010 and I don’t think he wishes to lose on this issue.
For those who are interested in how an IC works, the easy to navigate IOGCC website provides a good example: http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/
L3, I only disagree on one trivial point – your use of the word ‘radical’ to describe the IC approach to governance in one of your comments above. I should think that a few minutes spent surfing the IOGCC website will persuade you that the IC concept is anything but radical. Rather its just one more tool available to the citizens in our efforts to continue the American Experiment.
I applaud, without reservation, your efforts to expand the use of the IC tool.
Was it Mark Twain that said that no man’s life and property is safe when the US Congress is in session?
This initiative would aim add to that warning “Unless the State Legislature is also.”
As I have related before, I have become quite disturbed to the extent to which States, Counties, and local authorities await a boon granted to them by the Great White Fathers in DC. One of the most important aspects of Leo’s concept is that it would begin to break that cycle of dependancy. If people can be encouraged to begin to figure out how to fix things themselves then perhaps they will make it a habit.
Back after the Rodney King riots in LA, Pres Bush came to visit the devastated area and some of the media became enamoured of a young black woman who said she would like to talk to the President to show him what needed to be done in the neighborhood. She took the media around and showed them empty lots that could be converted into parks and playgrounds and infrastructure that needed to be repaired. So there you had a bright young woman who lived in an area where most people are unemployed and who had come to think that if something needed to be done you talked to the President of the whole country. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that going on. Those are the people who elected Obama and are now quite disappointed in him; Leo aims to show them another way.
Re:43. Black Bart
Gotta correct something stupid I just wrote:
“So that when it gets to the Supreme Court, and they are to rule on Obamacare’s constitutionality, it may already be the defacto law of the land.”
Obamacare is already the actual law of the land. What I should have said, was if the IC’s implement Obamacare it may already be settled law, even if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare unconstitutional.
Geez, I hate it when I do that. Think I’ll just stick to lurking.
Either a “Fair Tax” puts an extra burden on poor people by taxing food and clothing or it effectively becomes a “Luxury Tax”. Now, I’m not necessarily against luxury taxes. It’s just that luxury taxes have traditionally been “lefty” and bitterly opposed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Somehow, the idea that we should exempt luxuries from a sales tax in order to “help small businesses create jobs” sounds ridiculous…
37. Leo Linbeck III
re: >Let a thousand points of light bloom. (Or something like that.)
Of course the kinder, gentler Maoists in charge here will use every instrumentality of federal power at their disposal to identify, isolate and snuff out those points of light.
Don’t get me wrong. Your concept is a noble and honorable one, and worth attempting. Unfortunately, time is not on our side, and the imminent tide of cascading crises which are already upon us will more likely result in much more “dramatic” resolutions.
o/t or is it? Osama Bin Laden (D-The Caves of Hell) came out against global warming. Maybe he can make a campaign spot for Dingy Harry Reid promoting Cap and Trade.
Bin Laden could at least go to Florida and endorse Alan Grayson.
Here’s the fly in the ointment: What if the Supreme Court consisted of five or six or seven Justices like Breyer? If Justices who think that “world opinion” or European sensibilities already trump the Constitution, why wouldn’t they invent some new “penumbra” that prevented any Interstate Compact with national implications from being ruled Constitutional? Sure, a regional thing like a Harbor Commission would still be OK but I doubt such a group of Justices would refrain from striking down L3′s plans.
I will be interested to read L3′s response. I actually love his idea but think that the minds of the Left, always ready to come up with something to preserve their power, will find a way to prevent it.
batman 51,
“We the People” (through our Congressional representatives) are final arbiters of American Law, not the Supreme Court. That is why we need a Constitutional amendment giving Congress 2/3 override over Supreme Court decisions just as Congress has 2/3 override over Presidential vetoes.
“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves….When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves….” Thomas Jefferson
Re: The Supremes overruling compacts between states.
President Andrew Jackson has often been quoted as defying the Supreme Court with the words: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
Perhaps apochryphal, but worth a try. More people would be involved in political affairs if they thought it would do any good, and the only way that will happen is to devolve responsibility, and taxation, back down to the lowest level possible.
Excellent stuff, L3!
A few of observations:
On the comments about the Supreme Court: perhaps it is time to stop thinking of the Court as the final and all-powerful arbiter, but we must think about this very carefully.
I reflexively recoil from the notion of a Constitutional Convention, because I’d rather we insisted on actually abiding by the Constitution as it is constructed. However, there may be some rational reasons to revisit the Constitution if the intent and means and desire are there to abide by the results. I for one would enshrine the Declaration of Independence and its celebration of natural rights in the Constitution itself.
This thread is about political and governance reform, so this other issue is outside the pervue of this discussion, but I think is important:
Our system is infested with the unwarranted power of the NGOs in all their various forms, from ACORN to all sorts of “foundations,” whose cumulative influence constitute a shadow government. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that these non-state actors receive lavish funding from the government, and are even delegated a certain amount of policy authority (such as ACORN and housing), like mercenaries and contractors are by the military. This has to be abolished. No taxpayer funding for any of these NGOs. Funding received by these NGOs from corporations should be subject to close law enforcment scrutiny, since much of it is the result of extortion. Private industry should be encouraged to resist these extortionists and to report them to the authorities.
Speech codes and freshmen orientations that involve any sort of indoctrination at any institute of higher learning that receives federal or state funding should be declared unlawful. Campus student organizations should receive no university funding whatsoever (this latter is a suggestion to the individual universities). The EEOC and DOJ should aggressively pursue cases of apparent attempts to discourage the hiring of university staff whose political and worldviews may differ from the campus’s prevailing “norm.”
Here’s the fly in the ointment
I would expect that the US Supreme Court would rule against the wishes of the States if State authority would trump Federal authority in a serious matter. That has certainly been the one way trend since the 1860s and there are hundreds of cases the Justices could use for precedent to arrive at a well reasoned decision.
I think we need a genuine Constitutional Crisis to get Congress and POTUS to pause and yield to what I feel is the public will to downsize the Feds. There are not many historical examples of legislative bodies voluntarily ceding power to the locals. None I can think of, actually.
If six State supreme courts ruled that their respective governments had Constitutional authority to defy a Federal mandate regardless of how SCOTUS ruled – that would be a Constitutional Crisis. I think that’s what it would take to get the ball rolling.
L3, I like your style. It may not solve all our problems but as you say, it sends a strong, unmistakable message to Washington (paraphrasing of course). If/When a Article V becomes necessary, having used your Plan A first will (hopefully) help clarify the issues in the minds of the citizens of each state. People are easier to motivate on a local level than on a national level. I for one, will support this.
sorry for going OT a bit but this will focus on Article5 more than IC’s, though the idea of using IC’s to empower states over the feds certainly has its merits.
Anyway, Back in July there was a thread about the proper place of “smoke filled rooms” in american politics.
LL3 made a comment that trigged a post on my own quite humble and largely neglected blog, which is relevant to discussion of an article 5 convention.
here is a link to Leo’s comment from july:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/24/but-shes-not-there/#comment-116875
below is my reaction from back in july:
=======
Interesting to note is that the constitutional convention was a “smoke filled room” in that the proceedings were entirely secret (to the point of keeping all the windows shuttered despite the sweltering heat).
Some people have suggested using a constitutinal provision (article 5) calling for a convention to form amendments independent of congress with out realizing that doing so essentially creates a new constitution. This is how we got our present constitution. The constitutional convention was ostensibly a convention to propose amendments to the articles of confederation, for the delegates to write a new constitution was outside the legally authorized scope of the convention, hence the secrecy.
BTW none of the delegates had any intention of amending the articles of confederation. They all knew that they were going to Philadelphia to make something new, despite appearences. Part of was why Washington’s participation and election to the chair was considered important was that he was known to the public as a man of character that was not a power seeker… this it was presumed/hoped would confer some retroactive legitimacy on whatever the convention produced… even though it was technically outside the law of the time. But I digress… if we call an article 5 convention in our day we are basically starting over with a new constitution – albeit one influenced by our last constitution.
I am at once opposed to this idea. Partly out of loyalty to the existing constitution but mostly because I dont see how a new constitution that would protect freedom could be formed in todays political environment due to the participation of people with anti-freedom political thoughts and objectives. If those people have a seat at the table they will suck all the oxygen out of the room and the whole endeavor would be doomed.
The process that Leo describes gives me some hope that I may be wrong in my first assessment.
hypothetical: what if the 60-70% if the country that in their cores loves freedom called for an article 5 convention, and what if they used a process like what Leo describes in his comment: town hall meetings send delegates to state conventions and state conventions send delegates to the article 5 convention. And what if through the whole process focus is overtly and deliberatley placed on excluding from selection anyone with ties to the existing “overclass” (regardless of conservative bonafides) and sending only freedom-loving people. With 60-70% majorities it may be possible. this would open the door (hypothetically) for a new constitutional convention, composed of the best qualified freedom lovers (others may feel excluded but thats just tough). Then the results of the convention can be circulated and ratified in the states by the same 60-70% majority that sent the delegates in the first place. Ba-da-bing! A new constitution to protect our freedom and no black-hearted politician, money grubbing global-corporatist, or Che-worshiping leftist nut has anything to say about it.
Fact is, for the time being, legitimacy still flows from the people … and if a majority of fredom-loving americans still exists and decides to peacefuly countenance a change in government stuctures to one that better protects freedom, then the sheer weight of their numbers will carry the day regardless of any opposition.
Essentially what I’m suggesting here is a temporary emergence of one party rule – the freedom party – for just long enough to pull things back from the brink and set them right.
And looky looky … it all starts back at the same old question … “whom shall I send?”
=======
whoever above said that an article 5 convention was “going all in” was certainly right. the thought is really kind of scary. but if it were done right… well who knows… there are a lot of big IF’s in there… im just a rube in fly over country generating pixles and sucking up the bandwidth of my betters.
Regards
El_Heffe
The only way L3′s idea gets anywhere is if the Republicans take both houses of Congress, and if that happens Democrats at all levels will not only be scarred but scared. So the temptation to be “their own man (or woman!)” might be overwhelming. Besides, it sounds like the sort of “movement” that a politician can start — and hope that it goes off the rails later. Additionally, if there is a large group of people heading some where, there are a lot of politicians who will jump out in the lead and then ask where they are going later.
A few weeks back I recommended the Republicans force Obama to veto an Obamacare repeal bill, and then pass a parallel system based on free markets and free enterprise and force him to veto that. He will have to veto a free market “competing system” because he needs captives to feed to his health care cartel.
I think Leo’s idea will fit nicely with what the Republicans can do in Congress. At some point the Democrats will get sick of being on the losing side of the argument — if they are not already. In a sense, this state compact idea might give them a face saving out.
If John Kasich (that mean old out-sourcing financial sorcerer!) wins in Ohio, I could see him joining with Mitch Daniels and Rob Portman (our next senator — I hope) to push this idea. It might set up a Presidential run for Daniels (and who would be his VP?)
Repeat after me, “An Article V Convention is a trap” Do not be deluded otherwise. There are no rules for one, period. It could become a farce or a nightmare, but nothing good would become of it. Who gets to be the delegates? And who decides who gets to be the delegates? And how are they selected? What? You do have any answers to those three simple questions? It’s because there aren’t any. The Constitution is utterly silent on those three very important questions. Just settling those three questions will make any political dispute that the United States has had to resolve seem trival in comparsion. Nevermind where an Article V Convention would be held, who the presiding officers will be, who gets to sit on the all important committees, what issues can be decided at said Convention, and on and on and on. Again the Constitution is utterly silent on the issue. The answer to each and every one of the questions regarding an Article V Convention will be fought over tooth and nail, with no quarter given, no compromise on either side. Imagine the media circus (who of course will pay up each and every grievance and issue). An Article V Convention will literally be a Pandora’s Box whose opening will truly unleash the Furies.
“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress…. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.” ~ James Madison 1788
Work within the framework given to us by wise and humble men, my friends. It long and laborious, fraught with setbacks and disappointments, but it better to endure that than throw it all away on some ‘quick fix’. There is a very good reason that an Article V Convention has never been called in the 213 years since the adoption of the Constitution.
Tarnsman and El Heffe are spot on in their comments about an Article V Convention. It would be a disaster and would certainly produce a document with much new-age, multicultural, and pc treacle in it.
You have only to look at the recent (1980s, I think) Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms that drones on about the natives, and the environment, and which has been used by their lefty Supreme Court to justify even more lefty legislation.
The solution to over centralization must be bottom up, not top down.
Wow, lots of great feedback and perspectives. I only have a few minutes before getting on a plane, but I’ll try to get back later to respond to as many as I can.
Ignominious @ 38,
What prevents the courts from mucking up the “interstate compact” process through their usual ultra-elastic “living document” methods of interpreting the Constitution? Just look at what they’ve done with the Commerce Clause.
So, in the extreme, the SCOTUS could strike down a compact as unconstitutional. However, let’s assume for a minute that the IC gets ratified by Congress. A SCOTUS ruling would be a frontal assault on Congress. It is very clear that Congress has the authority to approve ICs, and when they do they become federal law. To strike them down would require a clear constitutional violation to support it. Penumbras will not suffice. Keep in mind that much of Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been built upon a foundation of deference to Congress and its supremacy. The SCOTUS would have to do a complete about-face to overturn a ratified IC.
But, look, at the end of the day we’re talking about a political initiative. If there is sufficient political stroke, the courts will not stand in the way forever. For a while, maybe. But ultimately, as the saying goes, Supreme Court justices do read election returns.
This strategy hinges upon the people working to compel behavior from their state government, and then organizing state governments to collaborate in the form of an IC. The reason I find it intriguing is that state politics is a much lighter lift than fighting in multi-gazillion dollar federal races. The missing link for me has always been how to get states to force Congress to act. ICs represent such a path. Maybe not the only one, but a real opportunity.
Cheers,
L3
Kinuachdrach @ 40,
As long as the Federal Government collects the taxes and decides how to distribute revenues, the Feds will be in charge.
How do we do something about that? Could there be a way for the State Governments to take over the tax collection duties of the IRS? Could States require companies and individuals to send their federal taxes to the States for forwarding to the Feds? Once the States have a chokehold on the revenue stream, things would change.
Well, under an IC, if Congress approves it, it is federal law. If an IC says that states collect taxes and Congress ratifies it, then states can collect revenues. An IC, once ratified, becomes federal law.
So, yes, in principle ICs could transfer any authority from Congress to the states. I’m sure it will be subject to a test of constitutionality, but this is the real interesting twist: having acquiesced in Congressional accumulation of power these many years, the courts will have difficulty saying that they can’t decide to transfer that power.
Obviously, how this works will have to be specified. But given the fiscal hole that Congress finds itself (and us) in, simply transferring this to the states might become quite attractive for the Ruling Elite.
Just prior to their surrender…
Cheers,
L3
Article V
“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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof…”
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
There is nothing scary about Article V; it is not a farce or a nightmare; it is not a “trap;” its rules are self-evident, period. Something good will come out of it just as the Founding Fathers intended. Amending our Constitution through Article V gives it the breath of life – a real living Constitution. Article V is not a General Constitutional Convention; it is simply the amendment process. There have been 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights – so what is all this irrational fear of another amendment? We should be shaking in our boots at the prospect of not amending our Constitution – just as a patient should fear the cancer rather than the cancer surgeon – the cancer surgeon in this case is “We the People” through our State Legislatures. Thank goodness our Founding Fathers included a provision for State Legislatures to force amendments without the permission of Federal Government. We need 33 State Legislatures to agree upon and then propose the amendment in writing. Once 38 State Legislatures vote for the amendment it becomes part of our Constitution. No State Senator or Representative need leave their home State – nobody needs to set foot into the cesspool of Washington, DC. The States have the power. Power to the People. We the People. Lets Roll.
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I like the idea of using ICs to change the game.
Though I worry many large states are as sick as the federal government (unlike Texas, the SFO-ites in California are happy to have the Central Valley starve, and they have the votes to make it so). I’d prefer to re-divide into “founders’-sized jurisdictions” of 300,000 souls or so, and have them compete for the citizen and their enterprise. Some may be very successful and show Stalin how it should have been done, w/ others able to observe the good and bad effects, but not be forced to mimic.
There’s also been a seismic shift in what’s possible if governance uses the automation and networks that created the boom of the 90s (equivalent to the growth that happened when most of the nation’s homes were wired for electricity). There’s no efficiency to be seen in sheer size when it comes to domestic matters, rather what we get is vulnerability. And not just vulnerability to natural disasters and potential for military decapitation but it’s just too tempting a target for special interests of all kinds, good and bad. If they had to negotiate with 1000 municipalities and succeeded, by definition it wouldn’t be a special interest.
What’s most important is that in a time of scarcity that if a political decision is / has to be made about allocating resources, that it be made locally, by our neighbors and friends, not a distant entity that can mask the consequences of a decision.
It also grieves me when someone calls our current thumb-on-the-scales (unequally and capriciously) a capitalistic system (esp. in a day where actual capital is less and less important than intellect free to invent and apply). I’d argue we need to apply competition to governance, not the other-way ’round.
We need to give freedom a chance. And when we have to trust, let us trust our neighbors rather than some remote monstrosity.
Storm-rider, who decides who the delegates will be? The state legislators? Congress? The President? The Supreme Court? Who? How are they selected? By committee, by vote, by lottery? How? What qualifications are going to be imposed on the delegates? Natural-born citizens only? A lifetime devoted to the study of Constiutional law? Just ‘who’ will these delegates be? Does the Article V Convention get to decide which amendments and/or rewrites are to be considered. or only those pre-determined by the state legislations? Those and hundreds of other questions will have to be answered before the gavel opens the first session of such a Convention. The Constitution offers no answers and they are not self-evident. Each and every question regarding the rules of the Convention, who gets to be a delegate and how they get selected will be bitterly fought over. You think for a moment that the progressives, the political elite, the media elite, and money interests are going to sit idly by and not attempt to bend the process to their will and desires? Calling a Article V Convention would divide this country as surely as slavery did a century and half ago. At best it would turn into a farce with all parties ending up at an impasse and it gets called off. But it could turn into a nightmare as backroom deals are made and the good intentions of a Convention get hijacked by the elites (if you don’t think they won’t have “seats at the table” you are naive). All we would have left is the hope the states would reject it. You might be willing to play a game of chicken with the future of our nation on a gamble like a Article V Convention, I am not. We have other options; ones that carry far less risk.
Leo’s ideas are first-rate, and these and others will no doubt evolve. But the country was lost by degrees; it will not be regained by degrees. That is walking up a very long down escalator.
What America needs is not a President, a Congress, or Court, but a bankruptcy judge with a thorough respect for the Federalist. We have seen miraculous results from municipal bankruptcies. Time to think larger.
@55 Peter Boston: Thanks for that excellent clarification of how things will likely go. I appreciate the notion that the Supreme Courts of States might defy SCOTUS. That indeed would be a Constitutional crisis.
But I also agree with the cautions regarding an Article V Convention. The risks are far greater than the remedies unless public opinion has so strongly been mobilized as to assure that the Convention would be dominated by “the good guys.” Since the professional political corps is overwhelmingly tilted toward the left, I doubt this will happen.
The left has a permanent structural advantage in politics. Their best and brightest think that politics is an excellent way to pursue their career. The right and the center think that working in the private sector, or doing their “good works” in Churches, Synagogues, and community organizations is the best way to pursue their careers and lives. So their best will go into politics and our best will be business men and women, doctors, dentists, and shop keepers.
The generation of the Founding Fathers was extremely unusual and the factors that made it possible are no longer extant.
I like the idea of IC’s and think it is an extremely creative way to shake things up and put the question of statism vs. distributed decentralized government back on the map. But an Article V Convention is far riskier than its proponents accept.
Black Bart @ 43,
But in out Federalist system, individual States already have that authority. If a State has to ask permission, then they do not actually have that authority, and of course the same would go for an IC.
Well, not quite. Congress is supreme within its scope. The question is: what is its proper scope?
Now you and I would probably agree that it’s a far sight less than it currently claims. However, the SCOTUS agrees with Congress, not with us. And the Constitution gives the final say to them. Like it or not, under current law, the states do not actually have the authority to simply pre-empt federal laws.
This situation appears to present two options: A) Ignore the Constitution and assert state authority, or B) find a way for states to reclaim their authority within the constraints of the Constitution.
Now, there are those who support option A. These generally fall into two categories: those who call for nullification, and those who call for succession. Option A is basically ends the constitutional structure we’ve lived under for more than two centuries. Pretty strong stuff, with lots of potential downside.
Under option B falls an Article V Constitutional Convention. It is clearly constitutional, so it preserves the core of our existing system (unlike Option A, which abrogates it). For a while, I was a fan of Article V. I’m sure an intrepid Googler could go back in the Belmont Club archives and find me touting this as the solution.
But the thing that has always bothered me is that while states have the final say, Congress controls the process. This indisputable fact means that the enemy would be in charge of determining the way the convention runs. This power always seemed like a huge impediment. It meant that there was essentially no limit to the scope of the ConCon – it could touch any issue, and it had to include every state.
Still, it was the only thing that seemed to fit the bill – until I was introduced to the idea of interstate compacts by Ted Cruz, the former Solicitor General of Texas.
ICs are precisely the delegation of federal authority to states. They are the means of asking for permission, and getting it. Once granted, the authority passes. So there is no longer need to ask permission, so your statement “of course the same would go for an IC” is not true. After ratification of an IC, permission is not longer required.
From a political strategy standpoint, the fact that ICs originate in the states is a critical design feature. To actually form a compact, no act of Congress is required. None. States are free to negotiate any agreement and draft and pass any legislation that they deem fit. So, Congress only enters the picture at the end of the process, and exerts no control over it.
Moreover, the scope of a compact is flexible, both with respect to issue and geography. It can include only 2 states, or all 57
. It can be very narrowly focused, or can be very broad.
And another interesting thing is that it can be presented to Congress with only 2 states, but can add states as it goes along. So, unlike an Article V petition, it does not require 34 states to sign on before it can be presented to Congress.
Now, nothing lasts forever. And it is certain that someday the United States will fall apart. We are mere mortals, after all.
But the Founders and Framers got a lot of stuff right. They created a document that has lasted more than two centuries, and (more impressively in my mind) through a growth of two orders of magnitude. It is amazing that a document written for 3 million people scattered across 13 states could still be largely intact and functioning for a nation of more than 300 million people in 50 states.
If the kernel of an operating system works and is bug free, it’s better to build a new version on the old kernel than throw it all out and start over.
Cheers,
L3
ScenarioA @ 44,
Wow, that’s very interesting stuff about the IOGCC. Thanks for the perspective. Your experience and views may be quite useful as we develop some of our thoughts. If you are interested in being involved, send an email to Wretchard and he will give you my email address so you can contact me.
And by radical, I meant that it will be viewed as an attack on the Ruling Elite.
But that’s a feature, not a bug.
Cheers,
L3
RWE @ 45,
If people can be encouraged to begin to figure out how to fix things themselves then perhaps they will make it a habit.
Indeed. The progressive movement relies upon the enfeeblement of the citizenry. By making us dependent upon the All-Powerful State, we lose our ability to self-govern.
A sort of atrophy of the body politic. The really big challenge – more than breaking the Ruling Elite, more than busting the Federal trust and taking power back to the states and the people, is rebuilding the spirit of civic engagement that has been the core of the American experiment. It was this spirit that Tocqueville saw in his travels, and it is this engagement that we must renew.
The core mission of our group is self-governance. We believe that the America is exceptional because we never had someone rule us.
There’s a great story about an interview that a young writer had with a veteran of the Revolutionary War. He asked the veteran, “Why did you decide to fight? Was it because of the Stamp Act?”
The veteran looked someone confused. “The Stamp Act? What is that?”
The writer, undeterred, then asked “Well, was it the tax on Tea?”
The veteran replied, “No, I never have liked tea much.”
Getting a little concerned, the writer kept probing. “Was it the writings of the Enlightenment, of Hume, Locke, and Mill?”
The veteran shook his head. “Never been much of a reader.”
Finally, with his frustration beginning to show, the young writer asked, “Well, what was it then? Why did you fight the British?”
His eyes got misty at this point, and he gazed intently at his interviewer. After a pause, he said “You see, young man, it was really quite simple. We always intended to govern ourselves.”
Cheers,
L3
Alexis @ 46,
Either a “Fair Tax” puts an extra burden on poor people by taxing food and clothing or it effectively becomes a “Luxury Tax”.
Not to go O/T too far, but the answer is: neither. The FairTax gives a standard “prebate” to every family, so that essential goods and services are effectively untaxed. This feature is what makes the tax mildly progressive, and not a luxury tax.
My biggest issue with the FairTax is the rate. It was designed to be revenue neutral. But I think we need to dramatically cut the size and scope of government, revenue neutrality is a serious flaw. A 10% FairTax should be plenty to operate the Federal Government within the metes and bounds of its proper authority, and would make our system much, much more efficient.
Cheers,
L3
tharkun @ 47,
Unfortunately, time is not on our side, and the imminent tide of cascading crises which are already upon us will more likely result in much more “dramatic” resolutions.
Perhaps. But if we are headed toward such a crisis, better to have an alternative on offer that is not one of the “normal” responses we know from history: total societal collapse or tyranny.
By taking authority back to the states for most domestic issues, we improve our chances of surviving any such crisis.
Cheers,
L3
batman @ 51,
If Justices who think that “world opinion” or European sensibilities already trump the Constitution, why wouldn’t they invent some new “penumbra” that prevented any Interstate Compact with national implications from being ruled Constitutional?
Some of my response is in what I wrote above to Ignominious But I’d also add the following:
The SCOTUS is clearly part of the Ruling Elite. In many ways, they are the pinnacle of the Ruling Elite: lawyers, tenured, their judgments cannot be appealed, their opinions are the law of the land.
There is no doubt that they will try to protect the prerogatives of Congress.
But eventually they will succumb to pressure from the people. FDR tried to badger, bully, and coerce the court. He was not able to pack the court as we wished, but by that time he was getting what he wanted. The incessant pressure finally caused them to cave, and much of the New Deal ended up being ruled constitutional.
Right now, SCOTUS justices are largely above the fray. But if ICs that are passed by state legislatures, approved by Congress, and signed by the President begin getting overturned as unconstitutional, there will be an outcry in the land.
I don’t see that happening. But I could be wrong.
Frankly, I just want the chance to be wrong.
Cheers,
L3
jWarrior @ 53,
More people would be involved in political affairs if they thought it would do any good, and the only way that will happen is to devolve responsibility, and taxation, back down to the lowest level possible.
Exactly.
We have developed this sort of fake equilibrium: politicians pretend to care about the citizens, and the citizens pretend to care about the politicians.
In fact, neither thinks much of the other.
So politicians come up with all sorts of reasons not to support self-governance. My favorite of late was Ezra Klein (of Journolist fame) who wrote in the WaPo that the people don’t really want to govern themselves. They really want incredibly smart, urbane, witty, and pedigreed politicos (and political writers) to decide everything for them, so as not to worry their pretty heads. (I quote from memory.)
I have a good friend who was discussing a lot of these ideas with his wife. When she realized that she might actually be able to have an impact by working on the state level, she got really excited. For so long, she “did her civic duty” but didn’t really believe it made an impact.
As an aside, we have seen this in the education world. For decades, central administration has taken more and more authority away from principals. The result is a large number of utterly enfeebled principals who, if they now were given the proper authority, wouldn’t be able to handle it.
The good news is that it’s not too late. There is still much muscle in the body politic, and we can rebuild our lost strength. But waiting for a magic pill to appear will not work.
Self-governance is hard work. It’s time we got to it.
Cheers,
L3
Peter Boston @55,
There are not many historical examples of legislative bodies voluntarily ceding power to the locals. None I can think of, actually.
So, it depends a little on your definition, but I would argue that one example is America after World War II.
We had control of Japan after its surrender, and after we had helped to rebuild some infrastructure, we gave them back control of their country.
And that turned out pretty good, eh?
Cheers,
L3
hdgreene @ 58,
The only way L3’s idea gets anywhere is if the Republicans take both houses of Congress, and if that happens Democrats at all levels will not only be scarred but scared.
I’m not so sure. Right now, the Republicans are far more scared of the Tea Party than the Democrats. If the Republicans really take the Senate (which is a long shot) it will be because every one of the “Tea Party candidates” win – Angle, Paul, Rubio, O’Donnell, McMahon, etc.
This may seem like good news for Republicans, but it’s not so clear. The barbarians will have made it inside of the gates. When presented with an interstate compact by the Kentucky delegation, is Mitch McConnell really going to stonewall the vote? With Rand Paul’s ability to bring down the wrath of the Tea Parties on him in his home state?
You might be right, but don’t underestimate the ability of the Republican party to capitulate. They’ve made a career of it.
In many ways, Republicans in Washington are kinda like the New York Federals, or whatever the name of the team is that plays the Harlem Globetrotters. Their job is to make it look like there’s a real game going on, when in fact it’s all fake.
Cheers,
L3
As I said above, I really appreciate the thoughts and feedback. One of the reasons the Belmont Club is so vibrant is because we all engage in dialogue in a thoughtful and respectful way.
I will continue to try to answer as many comments as I can on this issue. If you think this compact idea is a good one, please pass on the link to this blog post to others that you know.
Regardless, the work must continue to break the Ruling Elite, rein in the Federal Government, and rebuild our civic infrastructure.
Cheers,
L3
Tarnsman: “who decides who the delegates will be? The state legislators? Congress? The President? The Supreme Court? Who? How are they selected? By committee, by vote, by lottery? How?”
You need to read Article V again. There are no delegates – there are only State Legislatures who propose and vote on the amendment. You are making this unnecessarily complicated. Our Founding Fathers gave our State Legislatures the power to amend the U.S. Constitution without the consent of Federal Government – it only requires the consent of the governed via State representation.
Tarnsman: “Those and hundreds of other questions will have to be answered before the gavel opens the first session of such a Convention.”
There will be no gavel other than the gavels of 33 or more State Legislatures which in sum represents the Convention. As I said before, no State Representative or State Senator need leave his/her own State. The whole process will be done at the State level – simultaneously by multiple States. Once 38 State Legislatures pass the amendment it becomes part of our Constitution.
Tarnsman: “Calling a Article V Convention would divide this country as surely as slavery did a century and half ago.”
Too late; our country has already been divided by American Marxists into the laboring middle class, the lazy proletariat class and the self-serving Marxist ruling class (the Pigs of Animal Farm). We must amend our Constitution to defeat American Marxism – to “Win the Battle of the Republic.”
Tarnsman: “But it could turn into a nightmare as backroom deals are made and the good intentions of a Convention get hijacked by the elites… You might be willing to play a game of chicken with the future of our nation on a gamble like a Article V Convention, I am not. We have other options; ones that carry far less risk.”
There is more risk in not amending our Constitution than in the amendment process by State Legislatures under Article V. The “backroom deals” are already happening as we speak – backroom deals originating in Washington DC by our dysfunctional self-serving National government – backroom deals which rob our hard-working middle class of their labored-for property. There is far less risk of a Constitutional amendment by State Legislatures than current legislation coming from our National Congress – or than current Supreme Court decisions – or than current Presidental executive orders. There would be essentially no risk to the American middle class (only a risk to our effete would-be ruling class) because the process would be controlled by the State Legislatures who represent “We the People” at a grass-roots level – our Founding Fathers made it so. You seem to be afraid of “We the People.” Wasn’t King George III afraid of “We the People? Aren’t our Marxist elites afraid of “We the People?”
“I have no fear but that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.” Thomas Jefferson
LL3 68: “the SCOTUS agrees with Congress, not with us. And the Constitution gives the final say to them.”
Our Constitution does not give final say to the Supreme Court; it gives final say to “We the People” through the amendment process.
“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves….When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves….” Thomas Jefferson
LL3 68: “Like it or not, under current law, the states do not actually have the authority to simply pre-empt federal laws.”
That is not always true. State laws which are Constitutional trump Federal laws which are un-Constitutional. State governments must at times have the final say when National government violates our Constitution.
“1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…” Thomas Jefferson – 1798 Kentucky Resolution
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil… the (Virginia) General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.” James Madison – 1798 Virginia Resolution
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
A plan like this would only work if the voters have dramatically demonstrated they will tolerate no further abuse of power by either elected politicians or the sprawl of so-far unaccountable civil servants, judges, and other bureaucrats.
As much as I hate the thought of this country plunged into a bloody era of political strife, the Left has for more than a decade already been using low-level violence to intimidate dissenters. The most conspicuous recent examples are widely distributed photographs of SEIU thugs assaulting a black conservative who pissed them off by attending his Congressional Rep’s “Town Hall Meeting” to protest the terms and bullying techniques used to pass ObamaCare.
But over the past decades, it’s the Democrats who have in a number of recent elections found carloads of ballots which miraculously “elect” their candidates, approved without challenge by Democratically appointed election officials. It’s Democrat political appointees to the Department of Justice who refuse to pursue the most blatant instance of voter intimidation by the so-called New Black Panther Party. It was a Democrat campaign worker who in August 2009 vandalized the Democrat Party offices in Denver, which event the Democrats attempted to blame on Republicans and conservatives. It’s Democrat – appointed federal judges who so frequently nullify overwhelming referendum results by voters attempting to decide issues within their states. In 2005, five Democrat “activists” including the sons of a Democrat Congressional Rep and the former acting mayor of Milwaukee, were arrested for slashing the tires of almost 30 rented vans the Republican party intended to use to help get voters to the polls on 2004 Election Day. They plea bargained from felony charges to misdemeanor convictions.
A newsmax.com article from January of 2006 reminds that John Kerry carried Wisconsin on that day by only 11,384 votes, in a mostly Democrat controlled state which allows same-day voter registration. Over 84,000 voters were allowed to register at the polling places on the day of the election. After the election, Milwaukee officials acknowledged that some 10,000 of the “same-day” registrations could not be verified as valid. (The Wall Street Journal has published an article by John Fund pointing out that the Democrat-dominated Wisconsin state legislature has been attempting THIS YEAR to ram through bills that would allow even easier election fraud.)
The partially taxpayer funded activist group ACORN — which for years paid Obama for his services — was under investigation for hundreds of well-documented cases of fraudulent voter registration in a number of states long before videotapes showed their employees willingly coaching and encouraging felony bank and tax fraud. Despite moves to cut federal funding for the criminal organization, they changed names, and still operate unrestricted and continue to receive federal funds, thanks to the efforts of a mostly Democrat Congress.
Is this how we want things to be done in our country?
These power-mad bastards have shown they don’t give a sh*t about what voters want. Even life-long registered Democrats have finally begun to understand that the people they have repeatedly returned to office have transformed into monsters. Tea Party rallies and meetings draw a broad spectrum of America’s citizens
I listened a couple of nights back to Nancy Pelosi, Stenny Hoyer, Chris van Hollen, and House majority whip James Clyburn in their Democratic weekly press conference. It was a prolonged exercise in cognitive dissonance. One has to admire the con artist who despite being caught lying, soldiers onward, spewing more and more outrageous lies heaped upon counter-factual assertions followed by fantasies and more lies.
These folks are very good at their act.
I can understand how a person who only passively watches the Mainstream Media and seeks no independent verification, would perceive these folks as just regular folks, pleasant, guileless, sincere, trustworthy.
So, while I salute Mr. Linbeck for an excellent idea, I despair that the people in power are not looking for any change that in any way threatens to reduce their dominance. They have shown emphatically that they are perfectly willing to violate the U.S. Constitution, federal and state law, and their own stated principles in order to further their grip on the country.
Rationality means nothing to these people. These are after all the same folks who applauded William Jefferson Clinton’s use of INS paramilitary agents with submachine guns to burst in the early morning hours into a apartment to abduct Elian Gonzales and deport him back to Cuba, after his mother had drowned in her attempt to bring him to freedom in the U.S. They now insist in the same breath that law enforcement officers have no right to ask any person for confirmation of U.S. citizenship, but that an employer should be fined and jailed for failure to do exactly that to determine whether an applicant for a job is a U.S. citizen.
I do not think for an instant that these people will peacefully yield the control that they have accumulated by criminal abuse of the system.
Buy more AMMO.
Plant a garden. Learn Canning. Learn first aid. If you’re hemmed in by typical zoning laws, learn to raise chickens and rabbits. Sheep and goats, if you live in a rural area. Self-reliance is a great set of skills to learn, even if the results of the present governmental idiocies turn out to be less drastic than the pessimists warn. (Think “marauders.”)
And it should be a good thing to engage with your neighbors before the next election.
p.s. L3, Japan is a fine example, so long as you keep in mind the extreme methods which were required to convince the Japanese to give our ideas a try.
LL III – Excellent!
I just posted a link to this thread on a Wisconsin based Tea Party site. Interstate Compacts seem to fit in very well with their ideals.
Gosh, wasn’t it the DixieCrats — the Democratic Party of the Southern States — who enacted and enforced anti-negro and anti-integration laws for most of a century after the Civil War????
Wasn’t it DEMOCRAT Governors who “stood in the doorway” at their state universities in the early 1960′s to prevent black students who had registered from entering their classes? (Most people know about George Wallace of Georgia, but you might also want to look up Ross Barnett of Alabama.)
It’s also instructive of the Enduring Character of the Democrat Party to take a look at the Democrat Party Senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Many of the same Dixie-Crats who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 managed to to an abrupt “about face” when they saw that the overwhelming mood of the country was toward integration and civil rights.
Look at Robert Byrd! The guy was a policy-making member of the Ku Klux Klan into his 40′s, but ended his 5-decade senate career re-painted in the colors of a sainted liberal!
I would allow that it’s possible for a person to reconsider long-held views and accept change gracefully.
But the cynical Democrats seem to have simply said, Hey! There’s going to be a RIVER of GOLD flowing to fund all these Civil Rights Programs, and unless we switch sides, we won’t be able to dip our ladels into the stream.
Democrats. Look at the open running sores of humanity they made into their Party leaders.
To Leo Linbeck III @61.
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful response to my question. I am not optimistic, but your suggestions regarding IC’s look like the best shot we have so far.
jimbo @ 83,
Thanks for linking! Can you provide a link to where you linked?
Cheers,
L3
Mad Fiddler @82,
A plan like this would only work if the voters have dramatically demonstrated they will tolerate no further abuse of power by either elected politicians or the sprawl of so-far unaccountable civil servants, judges, and other bureaucrats.
The best way to do this is to primary the offending politicians. The Tea Parties have figured this out; now they just need to make it clear that they intend to do it systematically in 2012 to those who don’t strike at the Federal leviathan.
Cheers,
L3