In this three-part series Kira Gilbert interviews Convention of States Washington State Director Eric Minor as to his impressions on how reducing the power and jurisdiction of the federal government through a Convention of States would affect Washington State residents.
Part 1 covered why enacting such restraints are important for the people of Washington. Part 2 discussed a specific hypothetical amendment and its possible effect on an actual federal agency’s actions in Washington, and Part 3 discusses why Eric believes now is the time for states to act to limit the power of the federal government.
PART 3
KG: Last week, Eric, you explained for us that the biggest misconception about Convention of States that you hear from people is that an Article V Convention is dangerous. People get it confused with a Constitutional Convention.
But it’s not that. Article V is specifically authorized as a means for the states to preserve their rights against unconstitutional encroachment of federal power. Anything else would go beyond the authority granted by Article V. As self-interested political actors on their own, the states would be unlikely to propose (much less agree) to something that undermines the very Constitution that gives them the authority to act in the first place.
Moreover, even if something radical happened at the Article V Convention, 38 states still need to say "yes, we want to amend the Constitution in this way." So a “runaway convention” is so unlikely as to be almost laughable. And if anyone needs more information, how and why that is true, you recommend resources mentioned on and available through the Convention of States website.
Did I say that right?
EM: Yes, that more or less sums up the situation. I’d just
emphasize that the prior precedent in U.S. history, pre and post-revolution, indicates that these interstate conventions do stay on topic. So, it’s highly unlikely that a convention would go rogue, and if it did–against all prior precedent–there is a very effective safeguard in place with the 38-state ratification threshold.
KG: Let’s talk about the effects of amending the Constitution on the state of Washington by limiting the administrative state. Last week you mentioned that a great candidate for elimination was the Department of Education, and we talked about that a little. You basically made an argument from history. If education was successful before the DOE, why do we need it? Isn’t that the idea?
EM: Yes, that’s correct.
KG: What do you think the limiting principle should be for federal power on the states? And why do you think cutting back the federal administrative state is a good thing to do, even in a blue state like Washington?
EM: I have frequently enjoyed watching interviews of Milton Friedman from 20 or 30 years ago that you can find on the internet. I actually just reviewed one this morning about which federal agencies he would eliminate. It's probably from 15 or 20 years ago. He goes down through them all, whether it be Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, Defense, State, etc. I think he went through about 14 agencies. Milton felt we should keep four. Maybe cut off little portions of some of the other ones and merge those together, but by and large, get rid of them. If we can just keep government limited, individuals can make the choices that are right for them.
KG: Do you remember the four by any chance?
EM: Well, he didn't say this, but I'll articulate the concept. Picture in your in your mind a map of the world, and now, picture a map of the United States, there in the world. Things that are relevant outside of that United States boundary ought to have a federal agency, so that's Department of Defense. That's Department of State. They're engaged with entities outside of the United States, and that's you, know, that's like a broad initial stroke. It doesn't mean you can't have some agencies that are more inward looking like a Department of Justice or something, but certainly you know it's not appropriate for each separate state to have its own separate Department of State for diplomatic relations with all the countries of the world. You need a federal agency for those things that deal with entities outside of the borders of the United States.
KG: Okay. What do you think about the fact that, for example, the states on the southern border have wanted to enforce their own immigration laws? They've been preempted by federal law. That's an outward looking agency that’s directly impacting certain states over and above the impact to other states. Those states are the ones paying the price for federal control.
EM: On immigration, that's an interesting point, because it does specifically fall under the purview of the federal government, I believe, per the Constitution, because that's what my guiding principle is. The Tenth Amendment says if it's not specifically delegated to the federal government, then it belongs to the states.
So, the federal government should be involved in our immigration policy and our border enforcement. However, I don't think that necessarily precludes the states from being involved as well. The federal government, in my mind, could choose to engage with the states that want to engage on that and allow them to also have jurisdiction to enforce that.
KG: And now the federal House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Democrats, last week passed the For the People Act, which seeks sweeping election reform provisions like same-day registration, automatic voter registration, felon voting rights, and legalizing ballot harvesting, where people can go and collect ballots to turn in.
Does it look to you like we have any chance, outside a Convention of States, of preserving our republic, especially since the view on the left is so obviously designed to make elections easy to manipulate now that they are in power?
EM: I think Convention of States is our best chance to preserve our republic. That’s why I’ve invested so much time volunteering as State Director in Washington over the past five years or so. I appreciate all the efforts of our volunteers across the states.
