Convention of States, a Bad Idea
I got into a conversation with a proponent of the “Convention of States” this week. If you are not aware, the writers of the Constitution left us two routes to amend our law of the land. Either Congress can initiate the process, or the people can work through their state legislatures to do it. The latter process is the one the Convention of states proponents have decided is the answer to fixing what is wrong with the US Government. A few years back, the Georgia legislature enacted a law in favor of the Convention of States, and more have approved the idea since. It takes 2/3 of the states to hold a CoS and 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment that might result from its workings.
The CoS proponents are all good people. They see we have problems with the government not following the letter of the Constitution. On that we all agree. And when asked how we might expect the courts to follow any new amendments when they don’t follow the one’s we have already I hear them respond simply, “amendments work.” Recently, I asked one CoS leader to give me an example of an amendment that actually worked. He cited the 13th and 14th Amendments. To save you the trouble, the 13th Amendment officially ended slavery, an institution that was already ended in practical terms. The 14th Amendment extended the rights protected by the US Government to the level of the states and guaranteed equal treatment of the laws for all US citizens.
As I said, the 13th Amendment simply ended an institution that was already ended, and which had virtually no political opposition following the Civil War. That being the case, how did the 13th Amendment really work? It didn’t. It simply put a period at the end of a very long sentence. Secondly, if the 14th Amendment really worked, then where did Jim Crow Laws come from? If the 14th Amendment really worked, how in 1896 did Homer Plessy, a black man, lose his case against Mr. Ferguson, claiming to be entitled to the same rights as whites, his entire argument centering directly on the terms of the 14th Amendment? How as a result of Plessy v. Ferguson did the effective law of the land henceforth become, "separate but equal," rather than simply, "equal," and for the next 58 years? If the 14th Amendment was so effective, how is it that a Civil Rights Act of 1964 was even necessary?
Ah, but on the other hand, and to the point of my CoS friend, the 16th Amendment surely has worked. Americans have been paying taxes on income ever since. And that is an excellent example of why it is not wise to conduct a CoS. The proponents of the CoS do not understand how the American monetary system works. For over 100 years now, Americans have been forced to deal with an unconstitutional private banking system in charge of issuing our currency—at interest. The banking system owns our currency, prints it out of the air and loans it into circulation. As a result, Federal Reserve Banks receive interest on each dollar in circulation for as long as the system is allowed to operate. Where does the Constitution allow that? It doesn't. The Constitution requires that our government issue the currency. The Constitution handed Congress that power, intending that the government issue the American money supply, not a private banking system. Yet right after the wonderful 16th Amendment became ratified, Congress followed right behind it and gave away the government’s ability to create and issue interest-free currency. And ever since, the government has become the collection agent for the banks, using our income tax dollars to pay the private banking system its interest. Can you see where our wonderful amendment process has brought America to? $22 trillion in government debt and over $70 trillion in overall US debt. That’s what we get when we start messing with the US Constitution.
The proponents of the CoS obviously do not understand what they are dealing with here. In pushing for a balanced budget amendment, they want to install a ’68 Buick carburetor in a ’66 Mustang. They don’t understand the very reason American government is 22 trillion dollars in debt. They do not understand that without somehow repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 16th Amendment, their amendment would either impoverish the American people through additional taxation, or run America and the world out of currency, causing a depression making the early 1930’s seems like a trip to the zoo.
The proponents of the Convention of the States are playing doctor here. They have a sick patient but don't know how to diagnose the real problem prior to cutting away at the patient's arteries. Unfortunately, there are no James Madison’s among them. There are no Benjamin Franklin’s or George Washington’s within their mix. Thus, the CoS proponents are not up to the task of effectively amending the US Constitution. While many of us share the concerns of the CoS advocates, our answer is not more words in our constitutional document. Our answer is to truly abide by what is already there. And by working through the federal court system and replacing failed judges and Supreme Court Justices with true constitutionalists, President Trump is methodically restoring the Constitution many of us agree needs to be restored. My advice to the CoS is, back off. Allow our President work to restore the Constitution the right way. When he is done, you will see the results you desire.
 |
| Convention of States-A Really Bad Idea |
The CoS proponents are all good people. They see we have problems with the government not following the letter of the Constitution. On that we all agree. And when asked how we might expect the courts to follow any new amendments when they don’t follow the one’s we have already I hear them respond simply, “amendments work.” Recently, I asked one CoS leader to give me an example of an amendment that actually worked. He cited the 13th and 14th Amendments. To save you the trouble, the 13th Amendment officially ended slavery, an institution that was already ended in practical terms. The 14th Amendment extended the rights protected by the US Government to the level of the states and guaranteed equal treatment of the laws for all US citizens.
As I said, the 13th Amendment simply ended an institution that was already ended, and which had virtually no political opposition following the Civil War. That being the case, how did the 13th Amendment really work? It didn’t. It simply put a period at the end of a very long sentence. Secondly, if the 14th Amendment really worked, then where did Jim Crow Laws come from? If the 14th Amendment really worked, how in 1896 did Homer Plessy, a black man, lose his case against Mr. Ferguson, claiming to be entitled to the same rights as whites, his entire argument centering directly on the terms of the 14th Amendment? How as a result of Plessy v. Ferguson did the effective law of the land henceforth become, "separate but equal," rather than simply, "equal," and for the next 58 years? If the 14th Amendment was so effective, how is it that a Civil Rights Act of 1964 was even necessary?
Ah, but on the other hand, and to the point of my CoS friend, the 16th Amendment surely has worked. Americans have been paying taxes on income ever since. And that is an excellent example of why it is not wise to conduct a CoS. The proponents of the CoS do not understand how the American monetary system works. For over 100 years now, Americans have been forced to deal with an unconstitutional private banking system in charge of issuing our currency—at interest. The banking system owns our currency, prints it out of the air and loans it into circulation. As a result, Federal Reserve Banks receive interest on each dollar in circulation for as long as the system is allowed to operate. Where does the Constitution allow that? It doesn't. The Constitution requires that our government issue the currency. The Constitution handed Congress that power, intending that the government issue the American money supply, not a private banking system. Yet right after the wonderful 16th Amendment became ratified, Congress followed right behind it and gave away the government’s ability to create and issue interest-free currency. And ever since, the government has become the collection agent for the banks, using our income tax dollars to pay the private banking system its interest. Can you see where our wonderful amendment process has brought America to? $22 trillion in government debt and over $70 trillion in overall US debt. That’s what we get when we start messing with the US Constitution.
The proponents of the CoS obviously do not understand what they are dealing with here. In pushing for a balanced budget amendment, they want to install a ’68 Buick carburetor in a ’66 Mustang. They don’t understand the very reason American government is 22 trillion dollars in debt. They do not understand that without somehow repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 16th Amendment, their amendment would either impoverish the American people through additional taxation, or run America and the world out of currency, causing a depression making the early 1930’s seems like a trip to the zoo.
The proponents of the Convention of the States are playing doctor here. They have a sick patient but don't know how to diagnose the real problem prior to cutting away at the patient's arteries. Unfortunately, there are no James Madison’s among them. There are no Benjamin Franklin’s or George Washington’s within their mix. Thus, the CoS proponents are not up to the task of effectively amending the US Constitution. While many of us share the concerns of the CoS advocates, our answer is not more words in our constitutional document. Our answer is to truly abide by what is already there. And by working through the federal court system and replacing failed judges and Supreme Court Justices with true constitutionalists, President Trump is methodically restoring the Constitution many of us agree needs to be restored. My advice to the CoS is, back off. Allow our President work to restore the Constitution the right way. When he is done, you will see the results you desire.
I totally agree Hank. CoS advocates offer a self contradictory argument. On one hand they contend the Federal government is "clearly" operating beyond its constitutional bounds. In the next breath they say the remedy is to "clarify" the Constitution with additional amendments.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I would like to see the 16th repealed if for no other reason than its enforcement necessitates violation of the 4th.
As to the 14th, while I think the states should not be able to infringe upon the God given rights of Americans, I also think as interpreted it puts the Federal government, particularly the judiciary, in a position to judge anything and everything state and local governments do - and individuals as well. That turns the federal system upside down. So, in that regard, I think the 14th could use either clarifying language which preserves the reserved powers of the states. That could be done in the form of a revised amendment or better yet through a SCOTUS opinion. Likewise the idea that being born on US soil confers US citizenship needs to be struck down. The intent of the author and ratifiers of the 14th was to confirm that former slaves have all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizenship. If SCOTUS won't correct the misreading, then a clarifying amendment would be in order.
In no case do I see any of that happening at a CoS. One of the defining characteristics of politics is compromise. It matters not what proscriptions state legislatures think they can pass that will tie their delegates down, once in convention the horse trading will begin. With the Dems pushing to by-pass the Electoral College, who knows what means might they might dream up to neutralize all the fail safe protections CoS advocates think will guard against blue states getting anything they want from a convention.
I totally agree as well.
ReplyDeleteI totally respect both of you guys but I am in total disagreement. What would come out of a COS is pure speculation on your part at this time. The goals are well understood and I appreciate the fact that you admit that they are well intentioned by honorable people. Amendments that are contrary to the founders intention can be repealed, such as the 16th and the 17th. Prohibition was not workable and was successfully repealed. As you mentioned we have only two ways to make changes to the Constitution, through the Congress or by the several States. You question the ability to make meaningful changes that will not be ignored, but we already know that the path through the Congress is a dead end. A COS will not make the first change to the Constitution. It can only make recommendations that would have to go to the States to be ratified. It will be a difficult process to accumulate the required 34 States to get a Convention called and it will be a difficult task to come up with acceptable proposed changes that will satisfy the majority of States in attendance, but I have confidence that “we the people” if given the chance can come up with some badly needed improvements. The suggestion that somehow Trump can accomplish this with a minimum of support from Congress seems more far-fetched than what a COS could accomplish. If you haven’t read Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”, you might appreciate seeing some potential changes that could come out of a COS. Opponents of a COS always say that it will be impossible to get something good out of this and then they say it has the potential to impose something bad. Doesn’t it seem like those two problems are a direct contradiction of each other?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with waiting for the President to restore the Constitution, is that not all presidents have the desire to follow the Constitution. See Obama.
ReplyDeleteAs for "imposing something bad," does anyone really believe that 38 states will ratify every proposed amendment, especially ones that are really radical?