Too many self-described “conservatives”
want to repair
the Constitution. Constitutionalists, on the other hand, recognize the danger
of such a project and prefer to
restore our founding document to its former glory, retaining all
that is good in the charter.
In fairness, there are several proposals
being offered by those in the “convention of the states” camp that are good and
that constitutionalists should get behind as restorations of the original.
For example, in his book The Liberty Amendments, talk-show host Mark
Levin calls for the repeal of the 17th Amendment
As this author has written on many occasions, when the
tether connecting the states to the Senate was severed by the 17th Amendment,
the ability of the legislative and executive branches to collude in the
usurpation of power and the destruction of liberty increased exponentially.
Indeed, the “combination” of demagogues in the executive and legislative
branches has thrived in the post-17th Amendment electoral environment.
Repealing the 17th Amendment, then, is an example of a
proposal of the pro-Article V convention coalition that all constitutionalists
should support. It is an example of restoring rather than repairing the
Constitution.
On that note, there is a big difference between those
two concepts. As I explained in a related article:
Ask any antiques dealer and he’ll tell you that there
is a big difference between restoration and repair. Restoration is done in a
way that will preserve the value and function of the original piece, while
repair simply attempts to “fix” what is broken or poorly functioning on the
aged item. Someone repairing an invaluable antique will introduce external
material, believing that such will strengthen the broken parts.
A restorer, however, knows that only original pieces,
no matter how difficult to preserve or attain, must be used to return the
treasure to its prior glory.
In the hands of experts, in fact, the antique can be
restored in such a careful manner that it will not only retain the value of the
original, but it will increase it.
Perhaps the worst part of dealing in antiques
restoration is trying to undo someone’s unskilled repair. What could and should
have been done delicately and according to tried and true techniques is
scrapped by a hasty repair job, making a proper, lasting restoration much more
difficult.
Unfortunately, much of what the con-con group is
clamoring for are unidentified (and unelected, unaccountable) delegates to a
“convention of the states” to repair the Constitution with materials more
abundant, but not as sound as those used by our Founding Fathers when they
built the federal government.
Term limits, for example. Levin and others
demand that any convention must consider an amendment limiting the terms of
members of Congress. While such a response might seem tempting at first glance
given the extent of the abuses of power by the legislative branch, closer
inspection reveals otherwise. After all, term limits would limit the franchise
of voters, would throw out good (constitutionalist) congressmen along with the
bad, would make a substantial part of the legislative branch a lame-duck
Congress much less inclined to pay attention to the people, and would in no way
address the lack of understanding on the part of the people themselves, who are
ultimately responsible for the kind of representation we get. In fact, term
limits are anathema to the American scheme of government established by the
Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
The Constitution already provides for imposition of
term limits — in the proper
sense. They’re called frequent elections. James Madison explained
the Founders' idea of term limits in
The Federalist, No. 52:
As it is essential to liberty that the government in
general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly
essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate
dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections
are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be
effectually secured.
Madison even makes the case that the preservation of
liberty is dependent on the coexistence of frequent elections and the exercise
by state legislatures as a check on Congress:
The federal legislature will not only be restrained by
its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, but ... it will
be, moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral legislatures,
which other legislative bodies are not.
Curiously, Levin casts aspersions on nullification,
claiming that it is unconstitutional and not an effective weapon in the war
against federal overreach. James Madison disagrees.
Besides, the Founders did, after all, impose term
limits, by defining the length of terms of office for the various federal
officers. No member of the House of Representatives can serve more than two
years unless the people of his district let him. That’s the type of term limit
that our Founders established and that is a proper restoration of those
original principles, rather than a potentially devaluing repair using similar,
but shoddy, substitutes.
Next, with regard to term limits on federal judges,
the Constitution already provides for those, as well. It’s called good
behavior.
Article III, Section 1 states:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be
vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and
inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at
stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in office.
Article I divides the power of removing bad judges
between the House and the Senate.
If a judge exceeds the power granted to him by the
Constitution, then it is the responsibility of Congress to call him on it and
charge him for his offenses.
Like his call for congressional term limits, Levin’s
similar suggestion for limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices also seems
to be a way of relieving the people of their responsibility of governing
themselves. Rather than the people being required to ride herd on their federal
representatives to impeach poorly performing judges, Levin would take this duty
off our plate.
This arrangement sounds suspiciously like the various
“nanny state” programs forced on us by socialists that presume that we can’t
take care of ourselves.
Let’s prove Levin and the social engineers wrong and
resist the repair of term limits in favor of the restoration of self-government
as provided by the Constitution.
Finally, there’s the balanced budget amendment (BBA)
that is being flogged by several “convention of the states” collaborators.
Although calls for BBA con-cons are nothing new, some
of the versions being proposed recently are particularly frightening because of
the ingenuity and insidious nature of the methods proposed by their creators to
alter the Constitution.
Before state legislatures vote for an Article V con-con proposal that could cause real and radical damage to our Constitution, they should first consider whether a balanced budget amendment is necessary and whether it would actually steer our Republic away from the fiscal problems we are facing.
The fact is that determined citizens and state legislators could rescue the United States from its financial peril without resorting to opening up the Constitution to tinkering by state-appointed delegates, many of whom would be bought and paid for by special interests and corporations that would love to get that close to the Treasury.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be.” A fundamental requirement of vigilance is holding elected representatives’ feet to the fire by compelling them to honor their oath of office and not exceed the limits of their power as set forth in the Constitution.
There is no historical proof that a balanced budget amendment would drive the congressional hogs back inside the constitutional pen. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change by adding an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether these bills spend our national treasure on unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.
And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.
Before state legislatures vote for an Article V con-con proposal that could cause real and radical damage to our Constitution, they should first consider whether a balanced budget amendment is necessary and whether it would actually steer our Republic away from the fiscal problems we are facing.
The fact is that determined citizens and state legislators could rescue the United States from its financial peril without resorting to opening up the Constitution to tinkering by state-appointed delegates, many of whom would be bought and paid for by special interests and corporations that would love to get that close to the Treasury.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be.” A fundamental requirement of vigilance is holding elected representatives’ feet to the fire by compelling them to honor their oath of office and not exceed the limits of their power as set forth in the Constitution.
There is no historical proof that a balanced budget amendment would drive the congressional hogs back inside the constitutional pen. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change by adding an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether these bills spend our national treasure on unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.
And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.
Here again, the Article V agitators plan to repair
rather than restore the Constitution. Inexplicably and ironically, these
self-professed “conservatives” propose amendments to our Constitution that
would relieve the people of our right and responsibility of governing ourselves
and holding our representatives accountable. Why do the Article V advocates
believe we cannot be counted on to regain control of this Republic? Why do
these so-called populists have so little faith in the people? Why, in so many
of their proposals, do the Article V promoters display the paternalism of
progressives?
The Constitution is our most valuable heirloom, and we
can’t afford to expose it to the quick-fix repairs being offered in the name of
“reining in the federal government.”
Instead, those of us committed to preserving,
protecting, and defending our Constitution should begin devoting the time and
attention necessary to the restoration of the powerful term limit control
mechanisms included in the original design of the Constitution.
We must let Levin and the Article V advocates know
that we can take care of ourselves and we can control the federal government
and we don't need a constitutional convention to fix what we already have the
power to restore.
This article is the second installment in a series
warning against holding an Article V convention to change the Constitution,
when the correct approach for reining in government run-amok is to enforce the
Constitution. To read the first article in the series, click here.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The
New American and travels
frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second
Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising,
an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution.
Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com .
Source: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17475-repair-vs-restore-why-constitution-doesn-t-need-a
No comments:
Post a Comment