Op-Ed by Christopher Berger: A Constitutional Amendment
A Constitutional Amendment
Last week’s special election in which Massachusetts was a serious wake-up call to Washington, but I think they got the wrong message. What they should have heard was, “We the people don’t like the direction you’re taking us in. You haven’t convinced us that yours is the best way to run this country, and you’re not listening to us. We voted Democrat because we liked what your mouthpiece Obama was offering, only to now find it was a bait and switch. Stop now.”
What they heard instead was, “Honey, you’re moving just a little too fast, slow it down and sugar coat it and we’ll be OK.” They’re raping the people of this country economically, ideologically, and sociopsychologically, and they seem to think we’re enjoying it. The election of Scott Brown was a shout that we’re not, but they’ve turned a deaf ear to us, and they’ll keep on going.
Already there’s talk of passing watered-down versions of health care through reconciliation, financial market regulations, cap & trade, and new taxes and fees to go along with these things, and coming back for the rest once these new injustices have been assimilated. There’s also some quiet discussion of maybe changing Senate rules to get rid of the filibuster and ensure the passage of whatever liberals want with their 59-seat majority. And of course, the whole process will take place behind closed doors, with Pelosi’s and Reid’s Soviet-style politburo making all the decisions in secret, never showing us (or their own party members, for that matter) what’s coming until the day before the vote. They haven’t gotten the picture. So it’s time to take it to the next level.
To that end, I’d like to propose a 28th Amendment to our Constitution. There have been three different excesses Congress has demonstrated over the past year which most need correcting, and since they feel unconstrained by the Constitution as it stands, I am unwilling to trust any new-found sense of self-restraint. My proposed amendment comes in three sections, one for each of the primary excesses. They are as follows:
“1. Congress shall make no law to which its members, past or present, are exceptions, in whole or in part, except in accordance with the specific provisions of this Constitution. Congress shall make no law applying to its members which does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”
One of the major problems with the health care reform bills is that Congress is exempted from the requirements they’re placing on us. It bespeaks a Congress no longer representative of the people they purport to govern. The Founding Fathers had a rebellion over some excise taxes in the creation of which they had no vote. They specifically wrote into the Constitution a prohibition on titles of nobility and emoluments from foreign powers in an attempt to ensure that the governance of this country was always by the people through their elected representatives.
Congress has forgotten this fairly basic fact of history and law, and has instead begun shaping themselves into an unofficial nobility, with rights and privileges far beyond those of us mere mortals. It’s time they were brought back down to earth, and ensuring that the laws they make apply to them equally and in the same way they do to us is a good way to start.
“2. Congress shall make no law coercing by threat of criminal, financial, or legal action the purchase by individual citizens of any product whatsoever from whatever source derived. This shall not be construed to limit further such power as is granted to Congress in this Constitution to restrict or prohibit within the jurisdiction of the United States the sale of certain goods and services, but Congress shall be required to demonstrate that, for those goods and services the sale of which Congress would prohibit, a reasonable, economically congruent alternative is reasonably available within the market in the jurisdiction of the United States, which demonstration shall be subject to judicial review upon challenge. If such a demonstration cannot be made and supported, such a prohibition shall be considered as the coercion of a purchase by individual citizens, and shall therefore be considered by the Executive to be unenforceable. This section shall not apply to the states.”
One of the other major problems people have had with the health care bill, and to a lesser extent global warming and other environmental initiatives, has been the compulsion or prohibition of specific purchases on the part of the American people. A lot of this sort of thing has to date been justified under the interstate commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8), and it’s difficult to demonstrate that anything bought and sold these days is entirely contained within a single state, so tangled is the web of commerce.
This section would effectively neuter the commerce clause, the primary justifying power under which Congress does most of its more egregious work. Such power should be returned to the states, where it was originally intended to reside. The states were intended to operate as laboratories of democracy, places where ideas could be tested and tried, the results examined, and if the people of the country liked them enough, applied by other states as well. Nevertheless, Congress has usurped the role of chief legislative body in every state.
It’s time power was returned to the states, so we have the option to go somewhere else if we don’t like it where we are. There are reasons I refuse to live in Massachusetts, New York, and California. I think the laws in those places, with reference to health care in MA, environmentalism in CA, and taxation in general in NY are insane, and I’m quite happy not being subjected to them here in Kansas. But if the federal government makes a stupid law, I have no recourse. I can’t go somewhere else to escape it.
“3. All legislation passed by Congress shall contain a section identifying for each provision the specific legislative authority of Congress under this Constitution for the provisions of the legislation. Failure to identify legislative authority under this Constitution, whether by failing to list a properly empowering clause or by omission of such a section entirely, shall constitute grounds for nullification of the legislation in question. This section shall not be applied to the states.”
This third section is the essence of a bill that John Shadegg (R-AZ) has introduced to the House every year since he was elected. The Constitution does not grant all power to the Congress, with certain rights and exceptions for the people; just the opposite. All power is placed constitutionally in the hands of the states and the people, with certain powers and areas of responsibility carved out for the federal government. Congress should be able to identify to the American people the specific provisions of the Constitution which allow them to pass pieces of legislation, but they blow right past their limitations on a daily basis. If an amendment to the Constitution is required to force them to recognize their own limits, so be it, and it appears it is. The tricky part will, of course, be getting Congressional approval for any of this. Congress isn’t fond of limitations on itself, and it never will be.
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers left us a way to amend the Constitution without Congress. It’s never been done before, but if two thirds of the legislatures of the states decide it needs to happen, ratification can begin, and if three quarters of the states ratify an amendment, it can be placed in the Constitution without Congressional approval. I, for one, would love to see this amendment put into force in just this fashion. The irony would be delicious.
Related Posts:
- Target Master Shooting Academy on HB 2620 FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT
- Heritage — How Many Americans Could End Up on the Public Health Plan? A Look at the Estimates
- Medicaid Funding of Abortion: Setting the Record Straight — Dennis G. Smith
- Months later, Brownback Signs Petition for Health Care Amendment
- Hope for America Coalition: The Case for a Federalist Amendment
