This part of the Article V series will focus on what it is we can do with a Convention of States. This is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
See also:
Part I – The gift of Article V
Part II – Article V is a Call to Action - Will You Answer the Call?
Mark Meckler is the current President of the Citizens for Self Governance and Convention of States Action. He co-founded the Tea Party Patriots, is an attorney, a business executive and is politically active. I've had the pleasure of watching and hearing Mark speak on videos and teleconferences and I believe he is politically active because he cares about the future of this country. He is a great communicator and he is highly intelligent. He's well educated on U.S. politics and the history of the country and its founding. He also has some good ideas about how to get things back on track.
Some of his ideas are similar to the ideas highlighted in Mark Levin's book, “The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic.” In his book, Mark Levin gives us specific examples of amendments we could use to restore sanity to our political system. If I recall correctly, Mark Levin was writing this book about the same time Mark Mekler and Michael Farris were working on the creation of the Convention of a States Project.
One of my favorite ideas from both the Convention of States Project and Mark Levin has to do with the U.S. Senate. You may not know this, but U.S. Senators were appointed by the states for the first 124 years of the Republic. On April 8, 1913, that changed with the final ratification of the 17th Amendment which reads:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”
Why is this important? Well if you go back and read what the delegates said at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 when they were designing the Congress, you will see that the Framers wanted the Senate (upper House) to have a different source of power from the (lower) House in order to provide balance between the two. They wanted specifically the states to have a voice in the national government to serve as a check and a balance.
The 17th Amendment removes this direct involvement of the state legislatures in the Senate and places it in the hands of the voting population of each state. Late 19th Century and early 20th Century progressives pointed to a specific problem in order to sell the 17th Amendment to the states. The problem was state legislatures that were divided and controlled by opposing parties could not agree on appointments and were thus unable to fill vacancies, leaving Senate seats vacant for months or years. By changing the mechanics of how senators would fill seats from state appointments to direct democratic elections by the people, the problem was seemingly resolved.
So what is wrong with that?
Well, where should I begin? Should I start with the dark money that's always brought up before elections and how it's used to elect politicians, let alone senators? Or should I get into the erosion of state rights over the past century? What about all of the recent and widespread voter fraud taking place? How many U.S. senators have been elected with the help of ballot box stuffing? Is it also not evident that the government has grown into a bloated, unchecked and overbearing monstrosity? From spending to environmental regulations, the national government has too much power over the states.
How much state land in each state is actually in possession of the state versus how much is run by the federal government? How much dependency on the national government has been created through highway programs, environmental initiatives, and health care programs? Would any of this be happening if states were able to have direct involvement in the Senate?
I believe that many of the progressive policies leading not only to the overriding of states by the feds, but also the dependency on the feds has weakened the rights of the states. The feds use unchecked agencies to manage land within the states, are able to revoke leases to energy companies for energy exploration or for grazing privileges for ranchers, they're also able to divert and control the flow of water on the land managed by the federal government.
It is my opinion that the land in each state, belongs to that state and that unconstitutional federal agencies have no business managing land that belongs to the states. In a similar fashion, I don't believe states should be taking federal money for highway projects or for education. Many of the programs that send money down to the states have stings attached. The local governments that take this money are beholden to the federal agencies overseeing how this money is spent. This erodes the rights of the states and could have been stopped if the state legislatures were directly involved as a check and balance in Congress.
An Amendment that repeals the 17th Amendment and restores the right of the states to have a check and a balance to the House of Representatives is laid out in chapter three of Mark Levin's book. It also solves the problems of vacancies by giving the governor authority to make an appointment after 90 days if the legislature is unable to fulfill its obligation.
Transitioning to another proposal that's been hotly debated that would be proposed during a Convention of States is term limits. When we look at the makeup of Congress what do we see? Do we see a lot of incumbents? Yes, we do see a lot of incumbents. How long have they been there? There are some members of Congress who have been there for decades. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If you find yourself repeating the same cycle and expecting different results, then you may be crazy. You may also be very frustrated with the fact that Congress never seems to get much done regardless of which political party is in control of the House and/or the Senate. Term Limits would help to get rid of career politicians who exempt themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of America. It would force them out. How long they should serve is a topic we can and should debate, but the mere prospect of imposing a limit should be enough to scare those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.
What about term limits for the Supreme Court?
This is another topic that has arisen from term limit discussions. The Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments. Once appointed to the Court, a justice could be there for decades. Their opinions and views weigh heavily on the decisions they hand down. The power and influence of the Supreme Court can affect the lives of the American People for generations. Should we have term limits for Supreme Court justices? I don't have an answer myself to that question, but it may deter from the idea of stacking the Court to favor one ideology or another. It's definitely something to discuss and debate.
So, as you can see, there's a few examples of what can be done with an amendment proposing convention. Amendments can be written, proposed, debated, finalized and sent to the states for ratification. But there's a lot more than those. We can write amendments to require the federal government to balance its budget or limit its spending as a certain percentage of GDP, to create a rainy day fund, to pay off the national debt, to reduce or eliminate the regulatory authority of the government by eliminating unelected bureaucracy, and to give the states veto power over any legislation that is passed by Congress and signed into law.
These are just a few of the ideas I've either heard, read or seen. I support them all and frankly, we need them all.
The federal government is in the process of destroying all of the hard work of the Framers of the Constitution and of every American who has done something to make this country a better place for future generations. It's a bureaucratic mess and those who stand at the levers of power and control have been corrupted. So, it is up to us to fix it. It is well past the time for ordinary American citizens to roll up their sleeves and get some grease on their elbows. By the way, that's what it is going to take. This will only get worse if you think someone else will do it. If you think I'll get involved and I think you'll get involved but neither of us do, then the problem goes unfixed.
I know some of you are thinking about November and midterms or even 2024, while others may be thinking about Devolution. (If you don't know about Devolution, then head over to Patel Patriot's substack page and read the Devolution series. It's really good.) Those things are all great to think about, but the success or failure of this country really depends on citizen engagement. Going to vote or to jury duty and paying your taxes really isn't enough. You have to be engaged. You have to call your state representatives, your senators and your congressmen. You have to constantly be informed by information you've vetted and filtered yourself. You have to be diligent.
No matter who gets into office or how, amendments place limitations on the federal government and with the right amendments in place, we can slow down or even stop the federal government from acting without our best interest.
Get involved today with Convention of States Action.
Sign the Petition and then join our organization of grassroots volunteers. We the People are the solution.
