The
Convention of States project seeks to limit the scope, power, and jurisdiction
of the Federal Government. To put it simply, COS intends to exercise one of the
Constitutional tools that our Founders put into place as part of the checks and
balances of power when they designed our Constitutional Republic.
Some
misinformed groups or individuals erroneously refer to Convention of States as a “Constitutional
Convention” or a “Con-Con.” Nothing could be further from the truth, in that
the Constitution does not authorize a “Constitutional Convention,” but instead
I believe it morally compels the legislators of the several States to exercise
their duties under Article V to amend
the Constitution in order that the government may better be representative of
the people.
John Adams in
1788, just 8 years after completing the Massachusetts Constitution as its
principle author, counted eight explicit balancing mechanisms in the new Constitution
of the United States. He proudly proclaimed them as evidence of the
Constitution's republican virtue. These instances of government branches
checking one another were as follows: (1) the states v. the central government,
(2) the House v. the Senate, (3) the president v. Congress, (4) the courts v.
Congress, (5) the Senate v. the president (with regard to appointments and
treaties), (6) the people v. their representatives, (7) the state legislatures
v. the Senate (in the original election of senators prior to the 17th
Amendment), and (8) the Electoral College v. the people.
Today we can
look back upon this list of balances and see that most no longer apply. From
the passage of the 17th Amendment, to the various powers shifting
from the States, and many flawed court decisions, virtually every one of these
protections have been diluted. As a result, our central government has
predictably grown out of control.
Article V of
the Constitution empowers those State Assemblymen and Senators in every State
Capital to rebalance that power; and while doing so are more accountable to you
and I. They live in our neighborhoods, work in our cities and rural
communities. These are the politicians that are truly accountable to “We the
People,” and our Founder’s knew that one day they may be called upon to right a
central government that has gone astray.
Some argue
for example, that the State of Nevada “needs” the
Federal Government. That over 25% of our State’s revenue comes from the Federal
government. In light of this should we not ask how much revenue that State would
receive if the federal government only owned as much land in Nevada as it does
in Texas? Over 84% of Nevada’s land is owned and controlled by the federal
government. Less than 2% of Texas’ land has those same restraints.* The federal
government doesn’t pay property tax, but instead just as in so many other areas
like our schools, they impose unfunded mandates which adversely affect the
people and communities that live on or near these lands. Should Nevada be
allowed to sell or lease these properties their state revenue would be
substantially higher, and the new jobs and businesses that are built upon these
lands would increase the standards of living for all Nevadans.
The John
Birch Society and Eagle Forum argue that we should just stick to the original
Constitution, but there are currently two Constitutions in play. The
Constitution as written by the Founders, and the Constitution that is
interpreted by the Supreme Court. We all have read and are familiar with the
Constitution as it was written, but the Constitution as interpreted by the
courts has led to bad decisions like Dred Scott and several others. The fact is
that most of the Amendments written in the past hundred years have been
interpreted pretty close to the people’s intent upon passage. Prohibition, the
repeal of Prohibition, the right for 18 year olds to vote, these have all been
clearly written and are not really up for interpretation. Those amendments that
have been troubling are the ones that were intentionally written to be open to
interpretation in their structure and their intent like the 16th
Amendment. The most compelling argument regarding the above groups strategy of
inaction, is that an Article V Convention of the States is part of our original Constitution. Why would we choose not to
exercise this part of the Constitution, but vehemently enforce the other
articles and amendments?
So in
closing this is not about
conservative or liberal ideology; this is about State’s rights, and the rights
of the people to be fairly represented in their government.
Alexander Hamilton
wrote in Federalist #85; what has come to be known as the “final argument” for
the ratification of the Constitution, that “We may safely rely on the
disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the
encroachments of the national authority. “ And so I encourage you to empower
yourselves with knowledge of our history and our Constitution, and to empower
your State government with the task of calling for a Convention of States with the
sole purpose of limiting the scope, power, and jurisdiction of this Federal
Government that is no longer responsive to “We the People.” Contact your
representative in the Assembly and your State Senator; let them know that you
support them in these efforts. We need them to exercise their rights under
Article V; and make no mistake, this will require herculean efforts on their
part but the rewards are great. The United States is still that “shining city
on a hill” radiating the light of freedom and independence to all the world. It
is that very freedom that is at stake, for once it’s lost none of us will ever
see it again.
