NH citizens made time to come together on November 23rd at 7 pm. Even though everyone was busy preparing for Thanksgiving, many invested in restoring our Nation and carved out an hour to learn a little more about the Convention of States.
NH's Resolution is written the same as all the 19 other states that have passed. These three topics are specified:
1. Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government.
2. Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
3. Term limits on Congress and federal officials.
One newly elected House Representative shared something profound, "One is none, two is done." We discussed that NH had previously passed a balanced budget Article V application in 2012. This year, in addition to the Convention of States Article V Resolution, someone else is also submitting an application for an Article V, for just Congressional Term limits.
This House Representative's wisdom is that since NH has already passed one Article V application in the past, they have proven to themselves that they can get over their fear. There is no limit to the number of Article V applications a state can submit.
We spent the majority of our time working through why Convention of States uses three topics on its Resolution instead of just one.
In 2012, NH passed its balance budget amendment Article V application. However, so did many other states. The problem found is each state submitted the wording they wanted as if proposing the amendment during the application phase. The Founders knew the importance of the states coming together face to face to generate the best wording for any proposal. You can read all the applications' different phraseology here.
Convention of States understands that coming together in a conference allows the proposal of the best amendment/s with the opportunity to handle the structural problems versus only addressing one issue.
For example, when writing a balanced budget amendment, what is to stop Washington from going on an unlimited spending spree on our dime? The states could propose a balanced budget amendment and a tax cap. It takes a majority vote at that convention to get any proposals to return to all 50 states for ratification. We won't know ahead of time what the final wording will be.
Only thirteen state legislatures would need to vote "no" to stop anything crazy coming back from that convention. Thirty-eight state Legislatures approving any proposal is a high bar. The Founders made the process difficult as a check and balance for men, knowing that power corrupts absolutely.
Why do we have 3 topics?
* wording in 3 images above summarized from Michael Ferris in this article.
What about Article I - the Legislature?
Imagine if Congress is required to write only one topic per bill, no more than ten pages long, notated in the average American tongue, instead of legalese? These changes would allow honorable Congressmen the opportunity to succeed when having a chance to read legislation before having to vote on it.
Imagine if all bills were submitted with the Article citing its authority to propose such a bill. Citing the Article would help Congressmen remember the enumerated powers which bind them.
What about Article II- the President?
Do we really need all of these departments in the National level or would we be better served having these departments at the state level?
Dept of Labor, Dept of Health, Dept of Welfare, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education
What about the IRS agents hired to spy on honest Americans? Does that serve the American people? Congress currently has the power of the purse. They can simply choose to stop funding these departments and redirect anything necessary. Since they are not using the checks and balances given them by the Constitution, now "We the People" have no other choice but to exercise our rights by using Article V.
What about Article III- the Judiciary?
Imagine if Justices adjudicated from original intent of Constitution instead of most recent court case. We Americans follow our pocket constitutions and Washington follows the court-stitution- the constitution as defined by the Courts.
Mark Levin in the Liberty Amendments explains it best.
"During the last 80 years..., the justices have redefined noncommerce as
commerce."1
"...redefining penalties as taxes- to accommodate the vast expansion of
federal government's micromangament over private econmic activity."2
1., 2., The Liberty Amendments~Mark Levin, page 6
These few examples of reining in the power of the federal government make it clear that we need to pass the Convention of States Resolution with all three topics. One topic is simply not enough to restore our Republic to its original intent.
