Article V is not a loophole. It is the deliberate constitutional path to restoration after generations of judicial, congressional, and bureaucratic abuse.
Thus the critical importance of STATE governments’ integrity is elevated into clear view.
I currently suspect many state governments are equally as vulnerable to election fraud and manipulation and are thus as unrepresentative of their state residents’ wishes as is Congress.
These “fabricated” state legislatures are suspect and thus unreliable to fairly represent their voters’ wishes in any constitutional convention or ratification vote thereafter.
Until election integrity has been improved via much of what is in the Save Act that the Senate refuses to address, I fear any constitutional amendment process will be as corrupt as the current federal and many state governments already are.
"I currently suspect many state governments are equally as vulnerable to election fraud and manipulation and are thus as unrepresentative of their state residents’ wishes as is Congress."
I live in Mn. Norm Coleman vs Al Franken. It was close, But Norm was wining when SHOCK just enough were found in the truck of a car to give the win to Al Franken.
Yes. We **must** demand the election process be remedied, tested, and proven to accurately reflect the People’s choices BEFORE any votes are taken that will potentially change the US Constitution.
Very well written case study for exercising the Convention of States. I believe around 25 States have already approved it? Hopefully, there is no expiration to the State approvals that have already been hard-fought.
Presumably, they can rescind their actions, but apart from that there's no formal expiration. That's exactly how we got the 27th Amendment, proposed by James Madison in 1789 and ratified by 38 states in 1992.
Rod, I’m on a committee here in Alberta. That’s working on developing a constitution for Alberta. We have Bruce parody and Keith Wilson and some others. We’d like your input if you’d like to be a part of this get a hold of me.
I'd love to! I can't begin to tell you how many constitutions and bylaws I've drafted for all different kinds of organizations, and in addition to my law degree (focused on constitutional law) I did a fellowship at Cambridge focused on the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. I LOVE this stuff. And, as it happens, I love Alberta!
Bruce Pardy, Dennis Kalma and Matthew Rowley just toured Alberta talking on a constitution. Keith Wilson and Mr. Kalma and others are working a White Paper transition plan to exit Canada if a yes vote happens. You should give Dennis or Keith a call just for fun. See what we are up to. :)
This is all very interesting, but which 38 states will sign up for this? Just off the top of my head, we can cross off MA, CA, WA, OR, IL, CT, RI, NH, ME, NY, NJ, VA, CO, DE. So that leaves only 36 states.
I don't recall off the top of my head which of the remaining states have legislatures with only the house OR the senate controlled by Dems, but there must be some, surely.
So this is just a nice theory that will never happen.
And that's separate and aside from the idea that better wording in the Constitution will constrain left-wing judges from finding novel and creative ways to "interpret" the revised Constitution. The problem with progressive judges isn't that they can't read the words that are already there. The problem is that they don't like what is there, and will always find a way around it when they want to.
38 states don't have to sign up for it, just 34. And if memory serves, 20 states have already done so. 34 is a number that, based on recent presidential elections, would not be too hard to reach if we were sufficiently persuasive.
The hard number is the 38 needed to ratify. And I say that as a good thing. That's a huge brake on anything crazy.
Difficult is good. But it's doable. And there are reforms that are needed. For example, my idea to fix the number of Supreme Court justices is a no-brainer once people understand it, and there are other no-brainer type reforms that would make the system fairer without overly favoring one side. Those could pass, and we could see real benefits.
My guess is, anything that tries to grab too much would go down in flames.
The math doesn't work. ANY proposal that is even remotely "conservative" in today's context would never get 38 states to support - see the list above of 14 states that would NEVER agree to even a no-brainer, like limiting the number of Supreme Court justices.
What looks like a no-brainer to normal people is, for leftists, like cutting off their own left testicle.
To be honest, given the number of RINOs running around many supposedly deep-red states (recall the now-defeated redistricting RINOs in the Indiana State Senate), it wouldn't surprise me if even some red states voted against such "no-brainers".
Oh, and add MD to the list of the deep-blue states. So we have 15 states that are guaranteed to vote "no" to anything that seems like a "no-brainer" to a normal person. So that leaves 35 states.
I might be forgetting one or two blue or blue-ish states. Not sure where VT falls, or if DC counts, or doesn't count, as a state for purposes of this exercise (probably not, but Dems will certainly argue that it should).
In other words, the point isn't that it's difficult. The point is that it is impossible.
Several of the states you are writing off as beyond hope have elected Republicans statewide in recent years. I would also remind you that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were "beyond hope" for Trump in 2016 but he won them all.
I've been on the practical side of politics for 40 years. When I started, Arkansas and Florida were solid blue states, the former having exactly 1 out of 75 counties led by Republicans. They're now the reddest states in America. I can tell you: nothing is "beyond hope".
Well... Trump didn't actually win MN in 2016... (Though he did come within 2%, so that's something.)
But I understand your point. :)
As a counterpoint: yes, partisan lean can change over time. (I live in FL, so I see it all around me firsthand.) But it takes many, many years.
So if the proposition is: in some theoretical decades-from-now future, there might be 38 states who will vote "yes" for some common-sense conservative-leaning amendment at a Constitutional Convention - OK, hard to argue with this. Anything can happen in the distant future.
If the proposition is: there might be 38 states in the near or foreseeable future who will vote "yes" for some common-sense conservative-leaning amendment - ehh... ummm.... ehhh..... aahh....
Remember, they don't have to all ask at the same time.
James Madison wrote what became the 27th Amendment in 1789. It was ratified in 1992.
20 states have already called for a convention. That's without a well-funded movement or Presidential backing. Trump's 37-0 showing in primary races Tuesday night shows how much he can swing things. And some of his closest friends are already on board.
So the issue then becomes, what would be attractive enough to motivate 14 states to join those 20, and then for 4 more to ratify their work?
My guess is, big glaringly obvious procedural reforms that seem like basic fairness to normies and are hard to oppose. I've named a few.
But if anyone thinks we're going to create a theocracy, or abolish private property, there is zero chance of that.
Very interesting. Agree that it needs to be a difficult process. Revocation of the 16th and 17th amendments needs more explanation. And when you say 2/3 of the states should be empowered to overrule federal laws, regulations and judicial decisions, by what mechanism or collective state branch of government? Would that process differ depending on whether it was a federal statute, administrative regulation or federal court decision (SCOTUS? Circuit Court?) that was being overturned by the states? Do we have enough trust that any process to update the Constitution could not be rigged to favor the Left?
It will take 38 states to ratify anything, so anything that overly favors one side is going to die. But states like having power, so reforms that check the power of the federal government are likely to have a real shot.
Most of your questions about specific potential amendments are essay-worthy in and of themselves, and I may write a few. However, let's take the one on overturning federal legislation, regulations, and court rulings. I think we'd use the same process as we do in Article V: 2/3 of the state legislatures have to agree to a measure to (in effect) veto the federal action. That's difficult but not impossible. So when there's an extremely broad consensus that the feds have acted wrongly, there's a way for the people to act.
That puts a restraint on Washington that could rein in bad behavior to begin with. Currently on many things, there is no real check at all. I would suggest that a lot of that is because the government is acting unconstitutionally, but right now there's little means by which anyone could do anything about it.
States overriding the feds is why we had, and should have again, the US Senate elected by the state governments, and not directly by individuals. This was a bad, corrupting democratization of the Constitution that guarantees a republican form of government to the states.
The Founders saw the House of Representatives as representing the people directly. They saw the Senate as a "House of Ambassadors". Losing that was a catastrophe for federalism and our constitutional system. Coupled with passage of the 16th Amendment, it also directly led to the explosive growth of government.
I agree. As ideologically divided as red and blue states have become, a consensus among 38 states seems almost impossible. And separation of powers would be challenged. Concerning to think that state legislators could overturn a Supreme Court decision written by the likes of Justice Alito or Thomas. Wouldn’t be so concerning however, if Dems are ever able to pack the Court and majority opinions are written by the likes of KBJ.
Agreed, brother. I doubt, however, that we have enough leaders, or influential enough and with sufficient character, restraint, and wisdom to fix it. If we did, we wouldn't have the crises. Idaho, for example, is supposed to be a bastion of conservatism. Yet, our reps brag about their gratuitous spending, protecting the programs, and getting Idaho's share of the pie.
Thus the critical importance of STATE governments’ integrity is elevated into clear view.
I currently suspect many state governments are equally as vulnerable to election fraud and manipulation and are thus as unrepresentative of their state residents’ wishes as is Congress.
These “fabricated” state legislatures are suspect and thus unreliable to fairly represent their voters’ wishes in any constitutional convention or ratification vote thereafter.
Until election integrity has been improved via much of what is in the Save Act that the Senate refuses to address, I fear any constitutional amendment process will be as corrupt as the current federal and many state governments already are.
"I currently suspect many state governments are equally as vulnerable to election fraud and manipulation and are thus as unrepresentative of their state residents’ wishes as is Congress."
I live in Mn. Norm Coleman vs Al Franken. It was close, But Norm was wining when SHOCK just enough were found in the truck of a car to give the win to Al Franken.
As you know, I very much agree with you on the election fraud problem. This is existential.
Yes. We **must** demand the election process be remedied, tested, and proven to accurately reflect the People’s choices BEFORE any votes are taken that will potentially change the US Constitution.
Very well written case study for exercising the Convention of States. I believe around 25 States have already approved it? Hopefully, there is no expiration to the State approvals that have already been hard-fought.
Presumably, they can rescind their actions, but apart from that there's no formal expiration. That's exactly how we got the 27th Amendment, proposed by James Madison in 1789 and ratified by 38 states in 1992.
Part of the problem is there are large numbers of people who are quite satisfied with Wickard v. Filburn. They like it.
I really REALLY like The Union won the Civil War, BUT because of that The Federal Government became more important than The State Government.
For the record, I like you even better because you know what Wickard is. LOL
Google is (*often) our friend.
* remember when Google actually gave you and answer right away that wasn't The Narrative?
Rod, I’m on a committee here in Alberta. That’s working on developing a constitution for Alberta. We have Bruce parody and Keith Wilson and some others. We’d like your input if you’d like to be a part of this get a hold of me.
I'd love to! I can't begin to tell you how many constitutions and bylaws I've drafted for all different kinds of organizations, and in addition to my law degree (focused on constitutional law) I did a fellowship at Cambridge focused on the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. I LOVE this stuff. And, as it happens, I love Alberta!
Bruce Pardy, Dennis Kalma and Matthew Rowley just toured Alberta talking on a constitution. Keith Wilson and Mr. Kalma and others are working a White Paper transition plan to exit Canada if a yes vote happens. You should give Dennis or Keith a call just for fun. See what we are up to. :)
Happy 250 by the way love you Guys down there keep up the good work.
This is all very interesting, but which 38 states will sign up for this? Just off the top of my head, we can cross off MA, CA, WA, OR, IL, CT, RI, NH, ME, NY, NJ, VA, CO, DE. So that leaves only 36 states.
I don't recall off the top of my head which of the remaining states have legislatures with only the house OR the senate controlled by Dems, but there must be some, surely.
So this is just a nice theory that will never happen.
And that's separate and aside from the idea that better wording in the Constitution will constrain left-wing judges from finding novel and creative ways to "interpret" the revised Constitution. The problem with progressive judges isn't that they can't read the words that are already there. The problem is that they don't like what is there, and will always find a way around it when they want to.
38 states don't have to sign up for it, just 34. And if memory serves, 20 states have already done so. 34 is a number that, based on recent presidential elections, would not be too hard to reach if we were sufficiently persuasive.
The hard number is the 38 needed to ratify. And I say that as a good thing. That's a huge brake on anything crazy.
Difficult is good. But it's doable. And there are reforms that are needed. For example, my idea to fix the number of Supreme Court justices is a no-brainer once people understand it, and there are other no-brainer type reforms that would make the system fairer without overly favoring one side. Those could pass, and we could see real benefits.
My guess is, anything that tries to grab too much would go down in flames.
The math doesn't work. ANY proposal that is even remotely "conservative" in today's context would never get 38 states to support - see the list above of 14 states that would NEVER agree to even a no-brainer, like limiting the number of Supreme Court justices.
What looks like a no-brainer to normal people is, for leftists, like cutting off their own left testicle.
To be honest, given the number of RINOs running around many supposedly deep-red states (recall the now-defeated redistricting RINOs in the Indiana State Senate), it wouldn't surprise me if even some red states voted against such "no-brainers".
If the math doesn't work, then you have nothing to worry about.
Oh, and add MD to the list of the deep-blue states. So we have 15 states that are guaranteed to vote "no" to anything that seems like a "no-brainer" to a normal person. So that leaves 35 states.
I might be forgetting one or two blue or blue-ish states. Not sure where VT falls, or if DC counts, or doesn't count, as a state for purposes of this exercise (probably not, but Dems will certainly argue that it should).
In other words, the point isn't that it's difficult. The point is that it is impossible.
Several of the states you are writing off as beyond hope have elected Republicans statewide in recent years. I would also remind you that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were "beyond hope" for Trump in 2016 but he won them all.
I've been on the practical side of politics for 40 years. When I started, Arkansas and Florida were solid blue states, the former having exactly 1 out of 75 counties led by Republicans. They're now the reddest states in America. I can tell you: nothing is "beyond hope".
Difficult is good. It forces consensus.
Well... Trump didn't actually win MN in 2016... (Though he did come within 2%, so that's something.)
But I understand your point. :)
As a counterpoint: yes, partisan lean can change over time. (I live in FL, so I see it all around me firsthand.) But it takes many, many years.
So if the proposition is: in some theoretical decades-from-now future, there might be 38 states who will vote "yes" for some common-sense conservative-leaning amendment at a Constitutional Convention - OK, hard to argue with this. Anything can happen in the distant future.
If the proposition is: there might be 38 states in the near or foreseeable future who will vote "yes" for some common-sense conservative-leaning amendment - ehh... ummm.... ehhh..... aahh....
Remember, they don't have to all ask at the same time.
James Madison wrote what became the 27th Amendment in 1789. It was ratified in 1992.
20 states have already called for a convention. That's without a well-funded movement or Presidential backing. Trump's 37-0 showing in primary races Tuesday night shows how much he can swing things. And some of his closest friends are already on board.
So the issue then becomes, what would be attractive enough to motivate 14 states to join those 20, and then for 4 more to ratify their work?
My guess is, big glaringly obvious procedural reforms that seem like basic fairness to normies and are hard to oppose. I've named a few.
But if anyone thinks we're going to create a theocracy, or abolish private property, there is zero chance of that.
afteryesalberta.com if you’re interested in input into a Alberta constitution.
Very interesting. Agree that it needs to be a difficult process. Revocation of the 16th and 17th amendments needs more explanation. And when you say 2/3 of the states should be empowered to overrule federal laws, regulations and judicial decisions, by what mechanism or collective state branch of government? Would that process differ depending on whether it was a federal statute, administrative regulation or federal court decision (SCOTUS? Circuit Court?) that was being overturned by the states? Do we have enough trust that any process to update the Constitution could not be rigged to favor the Left?
It will take 38 states to ratify anything, so anything that overly favors one side is going to die. But states like having power, so reforms that check the power of the federal government are likely to have a real shot.
Most of your questions about specific potential amendments are essay-worthy in and of themselves, and I may write a few. However, let's take the one on overturning federal legislation, regulations, and court rulings. I think we'd use the same process as we do in Article V: 2/3 of the state legislatures have to agree to a measure to (in effect) veto the federal action. That's difficult but not impossible. So when there's an extremely broad consensus that the feds have acted wrongly, there's a way for the people to act.
That puts a restraint on Washington that could rein in bad behavior to begin with. Currently on many things, there is no real check at all. I would suggest that a lot of that is because the government is acting unconstitutionally, but right now there's little means by which anyone could do anything about it.
States overriding the feds is why we had, and should have again, the US Senate elected by the state governments, and not directly by individuals. This was a bad, corrupting democratization of the Constitution that guarantees a republican form of government to the states.
The Founders saw the House of Representatives as representing the people directly. They saw the Senate as a "House of Ambassadors". Losing that was a catastrophe for federalism and our constitutional system. Coupled with passage of the 16th Amendment, it also directly led to the explosive growth of government.
I agree. As ideologically divided as red and blue states have become, a consensus among 38 states seems almost impossible. And separation of powers would be challenged. Concerning to think that state legislators could overturn a Supreme Court decision written by the likes of Justice Alito or Thomas. Wouldn’t be so concerning however, if Dems are ever able to pack the Court and majority opinions are written by the likes of KBJ.
Agreed, brother. I doubt, however, that we have enough leaders, or influential enough and with sufficient character, restraint, and wisdom to fix it. If we did, we wouldn't have the crises. Idaho, for example, is supposed to be a bastion of conservatism. Yet, our reps brag about their gratuitous spending, protecting the programs, and getting Idaho's share of the pie.
"The way is hard, but the hard is the way." :)
Oregon’s Democrat supermajority won’t attend unless it can retain male-white slavery.
Perhaps Trump should enforce the Constitution's guarantee to each state of a republican form of government.
Keith Wilson would be thrilled to hear from you. Look him up. Cheers.
Brilliant and timely.