By Mike Kapic – March 26, 2022
In our hunt for liberty, we sometimes look right past the elephant in the room until we recognize it. Then we are angry with ourselves for not paying attention or some such excuse. We all do it.
As we’ve seen, the cancer culture in Washington DC has become endemic, spreading to our states, legislatures, schools, and neighborhoods. Congress has given up its own power and the Supreme Court has picked up their hammer, doing their job of writing laws for them. The Executive also powers over Congress now. This is not the Founders Constitutional America they designed.
More and more people everyday are awakening (what the Left refers to as ‘woke’ up.) to the increasing corruption of the Progressive Left’s ideology, policies, propaganda, fake news, and general mainstream blather. Even some on the other side of the aisle can’t or don’t want to see the solution right in front of their faces.
The Founders gave us, we the people, the power through our state legislatures to take the country back safely and legally. The Declaration notes that we the people can change the government whenever we want and with whatever method we choose. The Constitution’s Article V’s clause two gives our states (the ones who created the national government in the first place) the authority to amend the rule of law or law of the land.
This is Part V of a six-part series on the basics of what the Founders gave to American citizens for their use, should they need it.
Why States Should Pursue an Article V Amending Conventions & Amendment Examples
The few examples below are selected SCOTUS rulings that have impacted the Founders ‘intent’ and distorted the Constitution thereby enlarging government beyond ‘limited’.
- Marbury v. Madison (1803) The Court is to say what the law is.
- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) began the redefinition and expansion of the commerce clause.
- Prigg v. PA (1842) found slaves arrested across state lines Constitutional, superseding state laws.
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruled black people had no rights under the Constitution.
- U.S. v. Dewitt (1869) Congress can meddle with trade under the commerce clause when its “necessary & proper.”
- Langnes v Green (1931) found that ‘discretion’ means that those in power are exempt from obeying any law.
- Schechter Poultry v. U.S. (1935) expanded Congress’ implied powers under the Necessary & Proper clause.
- US v. Butler (1936) misconstrued the welfare clause, opening unlimited unconstitutional taxing, spending & debt.
- Helvering v Davis (1937) ruled that Social Security was only a revenue source on one end and welfare program on the other.
- U.S. v. Darby (1941) ruled Congress has power to regulate intrastate activities if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
- Wickard v. Filburn (1942) ruled the government could regulate noncommercial activity via the commerce clause.
- Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) ruled 6-3 that detention in a concentration camp was “necessary” and not a race issue.
- Everson v. Board of Education (1947) “wall of separation” was ‘codified’ by atheist Justice Black misconstruing Jefferson’s Danbury letter regarding church and state.
- Chevron v. NRDC (1984) ruled agencies prove by ‘deference’ their regulations are Constitutional themselves-usurping Madison v Marbury (1803),
- So. Bay[…]Church v Newsom (2020) ruled churches are not exempt from government attendance restrictions (while other commercial organizations are exempt)
- June Med Services v. Russo (2020) ruled against state requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges.
- Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) codified in law the abolition of male/female genders without it being a law.
SCOTUS has successfully injured the American people who have limited recourse for their actions.
The DC culture has enabled politicians, special interests, the three Branches, & the 4th branch (bureaucracy) to control the people, their state legislators and basic American institutions with graft, corruption, debt, and a of loss of our power.
The Declaration and Constitution lay a ‘surrendered power’ for a limited government with the consent of We the People.
JBS/Eagle Forum’s only ‘evidence’ that an amending convention will destroy our Constitution is that “it’s a bad idea.”
With government not listening to the people & Congress at ~10% approval, it is time to declare our intentions for a return to federalism. Only our State Legislators can save our Constitutional, federal, republic!
Suggested Amendments to Consider:
FRA or Fiscal Responsibility Amendment (aka, Balanced Budget Amendment, but much more!)
Limit terms on Congress
Limit terms on all federal judges
Limit fed tax/spend by fixing welfare clause
Limit regulatory power by fixing commerce clause
Allow states to override Supreme Court ruling
Require Congressional approval of federal rules that exceed a determined percent of GDP
States to approve raising the national debt
Super majority of states required to raise taxes
Repeal the 16th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Set SCOTUS at nine justices
Clarify Executive war powers
Simplify Article V
Tax filing day the day before elections
Pro-life decisions by states
Allow states to overrule federal law, regulation, or executive order.
Limits on emergency mandates
All Fed Laws Preamble (meets Constitutionality)
No state bailouts
No exemptions for Congress
Nice article Mike.
Of course, to me, the question is; Have we allowed the government in general too much power and authority at this point for an Art. V convention to still be viable?
If it were only that gov’t we had to worry about, I would be all in favor of at least trying to have a convention of states. But the overbearing gov’t is not, as I see it, the only problem here. The states and the people, too many times, are so accustomed and accept the general gov’t telling us what to do, I wonder if they would actually limit them enough. I find that many people find it unfathomable that the gov’t in general was instituted to provide for the defense of the states from foreign invasion and a very limited other few things. I mention the people of the states as they will be the ones proposing what they think of as reform. We know the states will get to ratify or not these reforms but we’ve also seen how well that worked out in preventing the type of run away gov’t in general we have today for the few states that wouldn’t ratify the proposed constitution of 1787.
Anyway, as you know, I’m still “on the fence” on this idea. As you stated in a previous article, in the early times Conventions of States were frequently held. This held the gov’t in check. If only we had continued this?