The past couple weeks we’ve examined some myths our opponents offer to the Constitutional Article V convention of states process. Their false claims have been thoroughly discredited. In fact, I’ve provided evidence-based arguments – arguments that have successfully persuaded legislators in Jefferson City.
So, is this really a good time to use the convention of states remedy? Our team is often asked this question. With society so polarized and in disarray, how can anything constructive result from changing our Constitution? Instead, why don’t we focus on a single subject like term limits or a balanced budget amendment?
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is today.”
The quote above is a Chinese proverb. It makes the point that it’s always a good time to make a good decision. How many times do we look back in hindsight and wish we’d have acted when we had the chance? Who doesn’t wish they’d have purchased a couple hundred shares of Microsoft or Wal-Mart stock in 1982?
The reason our society is so polarized and in decline today is because we haven’t utilized the Article V convention of states process to force the federal government to operate within its Constitutional authority.
As we’ve become unmoored from the Constitution, our unalienable rights have been diminished. Instead of treating each person as an individual, the federal government today assigns group identities–constantly pitting one group against another.
All of this creates turmoil and dissent where otherwise there’d likely be agreement. The federal government steps in claiming to solve the issue it created and the result is their power grows and liberty contracts. The federal government is the greatest contributor to civil unrest in America today.
Polling for decades has shown a supermajority of Americans believe the federal government does too much, spends too much and stays in D.C. too long. Americans also agree that D.C. will never voluntarily correct this situation. This polling holds true across the political spectrum.
If the federal government gets out of the way, most Americans will agree on a majority of issues. The perversion of government authority incentivizes conflict between groups in order to gain a larger share of the federal government largesse. Reducing or eliminating this reward system will lead to the restoration of the civil society.
So, let’s look at the convention of states process. The first subject our resolution addresses is “limiting the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government.” Amendments proposed in this area would seek to return the federal government back to its 18 enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution.
Much of the growth of the federal government has been through the Bureaucratic State. There’s no constitutional basis for the EPA, DNR, FDA or Departments of Education, Interior or Health and Human Services–just to name a few. Effective amendments in this area would decrease the number of decisions the federal government involves itself in and reduce its presence in our daily lives.
The federal government claims the General Welfare and Commerce clauses justify the existence of these agencies. But when Thomas Jefferson was asked what role the federal government had in education he said, “None without a constitutional amendment.” Last time I checked, there’s been no such amendment passed.
From The Framers’ writings and Madison’s Notes to the 1787 Convention, we see the original intent of the General Welfare Clause. The federal government could act in areas where the states could not effectively act themselves. Examples include negotiating treaties, national defense and establishing a unified monetary system. The General Welfare Clause is not a grant of power. If the federal government was expected to be involved in extra-constitutional areas, there would be no reason to list its enumerated powers.
I purposefully will skip to the third subject in our resolution (“restoring fiscal restraints”), because amendments proposed in this area go hand in hand with the first subject.
The federal government presently is committing fiscal child abuse. Today, the national debt stands at $30+ trillion. Estimates vary, but the most recent number I’ve heard is that every American man, woman, and child is saddled with $91,000 of fiscal operating debt. Add unfunded mandates (future payments the federal government is obligated to pay), and each person’s share of the debt is well over $250,000. This is criminal and both parties are guilty.
Now, if we fail to effectively limit the number of decisions the federal government makes while imposing spending limitations like a balanced budget amendment, the federal government could continue the same federal programs and shift more of the cost burden to the states. This would further destroy state budgets and place them under even more federal government control. Limiting the amount of taxes the federal government could levy also can be addressed here.
The relationship between taxes collected and federal spending has been disconnected for years. Every month the Federal Treasury collects record amounts of federal taxes. Yet each month, the federal government racks up record deficits. So how is this possible? It’s because the federal government is involved in too many areas where it doesn’t belong, and it taxes, prints, and borrows money to finance its illegitimate programs.
The second subject area in our resolution is term limits. This is the topic that creates the most heartburn for legislators, because it deals with them losing their jobs. No one would like that.
However, the Framers never envisioned career politicians. They were familiar with a citizen legislature where individuals would be sent by their communities to the national capitol to serve for a brief period and then return to their state. This makes sense because government authority is meant to lie in the state and local governments.
Term limit amendments are insufficient, because we’d simply be sending new people to work in a broken system. The federal government would still make the same decisions, but there’d be new people making those decisions. This is analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If we ratify amendments that effectively limit the ways the federal government is involved in our lives and limit the amount of money they can spend, it would be interesting to see if politicians would be so willing to stay in D.C. for 20, 30 or 40 years.
In closing, if we truly believe the federal government does too much, spends too much, and stays in D.C. too long, effective amendments must be proposed to address each of these areas. No central government has ever voluntarily returned governing authority back to its people. There is no reason to believe the U.S. government would be any different.
The Framers agreed there must be a peaceful and orderly way to restrain the federal government and its temptation to consolidate power. The Article V convention of states process is that remedy. Convention of States Action's resolution is the path to accomplish these goals. Our resolution is the solution that is as big as the problems.
Next week we’ll discuss the importance of the grassroots, especially in a passed state like Missouri.
In liberty,
Brett
Please bookmark the Missouri Information Page and share it with family and friends.
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered! Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
