This week’s blogger section examined whether or not the health care reform legislation is constitutional. I concluded that it is not because it would require the Supreme Court to, in effect, say there is no check or balance anywhere on the power of the Federal government. That has been a leap it has been reluctant to make.
But let’s just say that it does. America would then be faced with a dictatorial federal government already sinking from the weight of its bureaucracy and drowning in debt. Unlimited, unchecked federal power is against the ethos of our society, and would lead to a constitutional crisis.
This week, the FBI and other agencies raided militia groups based in Ohio and Michigan. If the Supreme Court rules the way that health reform supporters hope, this will just be the beginning. For these folks, the issue isn’t health care per se. The issue is an all powerful federal government wielding its tax power over a helpless population while engaged in ideological pursuits foreign to our political heritage and irrelevant to the economic plight of a sinking middle class. The lunatic fringe of those types of organizations might be based in racism to a degree. But for the most part, it is a “freedom” issue, freedom to be left alone by the Feds not invading every aspect of their lives. Ultimately, these types of movements are based in economics.
Politicians don’t live in a vacuum, at least not at the state level, and as abhorrent as this type of violence is, it garners the attention of the elected officials. If poll numbers stay the same with a solid majority of the country wanting repeal of the bill, and enough of the lunatic fringe acts up, it is more than plausible that the states will move for a Constitutional Convention. Couple that with the massive, continuing fiscal mandates now foisted upon the states, they may say enough is enough, and move to reclaim a degree of states’ rights from the Feds.
The Constitution can be amended one of two ways. The first is through a motion voted on by 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress: the second is through a request of 2/3 of the states’ legislatures. Any action by either of the above would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states either through vote of the state legislatures or through state “ratifying conventions.”
The Constitution has never been amended by request of 2/3 of the states; but Prohibition came close. Although Prohibition was introduced in the Congress then passed onto the states, it was a fait accompli. More than 35 states had already voted themselves dry, and it was the states that asked to Congress to initiate the process. So actions based in state initiatives are not as foreign as some would have you believe.
The call for a Constitutional Convention is the ultimate cap on Federal power. I would be in favor of the states coming together to re-examine the relationship between the states and the Federal government which has been marching steadily towards centralization since the Civil War. Centralization of authority was necessary in order to allow the industrialization of the country.
But times are different now. We have a population of 350 million people. Governing from the center becomes inefficient, and begins to rely increasingly on coercion and elimination of freedoms to achieve whatever goal is at issue. States, on the other hand, provide a smaller framework for the delivery of social services and the like, based on the makeup of each of the states’ population and economy. What works in North Dakota might not work in California.
But I think that the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington would shiver in fear if the movement for a Constitutional Convention ever gained momentum. It would doom their grip on American life, and would make the Progressives freak out as their central mechanism for control would be at risk.
If that ever happens, you would see Washington become more responsive in ways you couldn’t imagine in order to stave off such an historical event. The threat of a Constitutional Convention just might be sufficient to get things under control.
Maybe we should give it a try.
But let’s just say that it does. America would then be faced with a dictatorial federal government already sinking from the weight of its bureaucracy and drowning in debt. Unlimited, unchecked federal power is against the ethos of our society, and would lead to a constitutional crisis.
This week, the FBI and other agencies raided militia groups based in Ohio and Michigan. If the Supreme Court rules the way that health reform supporters hope, this will just be the beginning. For these folks, the issue isn’t health care per se. The issue is an all powerful federal government wielding its tax power over a helpless population while engaged in ideological pursuits foreign to our political heritage and irrelevant to the economic plight of a sinking middle class. The lunatic fringe of those types of organizations might be based in racism to a degree. But for the most part, it is a “freedom” issue, freedom to be left alone by the Feds not invading every aspect of their lives. Ultimately, these types of movements are based in economics.
Politicians don’t live in a vacuum, at least not at the state level, and as abhorrent as this type of violence is, it garners the attention of the elected officials. If poll numbers stay the same with a solid majority of the country wanting repeal of the bill, and enough of the lunatic fringe acts up, it is more than plausible that the states will move for a Constitutional Convention. Couple that with the massive, continuing fiscal mandates now foisted upon the states, they may say enough is enough, and move to reclaim a degree of states’ rights from the Feds.
The Constitution can be amended one of two ways. The first is through a motion voted on by 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress: the second is through a request of 2/3 of the states’ legislatures. Any action by either of the above would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states either through vote of the state legislatures or through state “ratifying conventions.”
The Constitution has never been amended by request of 2/3 of the states; but Prohibition came close. Although Prohibition was introduced in the Congress then passed onto the states, it was a fait accompli. More than 35 states had already voted themselves dry, and it was the states that asked to Congress to initiate the process. So actions based in state initiatives are not as foreign as some would have you believe.
The call for a Constitutional Convention is the ultimate cap on Federal power. I would be in favor of the states coming together to re-examine the relationship between the states and the Federal government which has been marching steadily towards centralization since the Civil War. Centralization of authority was necessary in order to allow the industrialization of the country.
But times are different now. We have a population of 350 million people. Governing from the center becomes inefficient, and begins to rely increasingly on coercion and elimination of freedoms to achieve whatever goal is at issue. States, on the other hand, provide a smaller framework for the delivery of social services and the like, based on the makeup of each of the states’ population and economy. What works in North Dakota might not work in California.
But I think that the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington would shiver in fear if the movement for a Constitutional Convention ever gained momentum. It would doom their grip on American life, and would make the Progressives freak out as their central mechanism for control would be at risk.
If that ever happens, you would see Washington become more responsive in ways you couldn’t imagine in order to stave off such an historical event. The threat of a Constitutional Convention just might be sufficient to get things under control.
Maybe we should give it a try.
No comments:
Post a Comment