Sen. Long has a guest column in the Journal & Courier about his participation in efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution through the untested state convention process rather than through the process initiated by Congress that has been used for every Constitutional amendment to date.
There is a growing national awareness, and corresponding excitement, over a state-led effort to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
. . .
The Founders feared that without this provision, states could never be assured of protection from the threat to their sovereign rights by an over-reaching federal government.
He then raises the specter of trampled upon states rights, a fearful national debt, and waves away fears of a runaway convention.
I suppose that when you’re messing around with the guts and inner workings of the Republic, it’s appropriate to raise fearful images of tyranny. But, for starters, the “trampled upon” states rights are over stated. I haven’t noted Indiana being ground down by the boot heel of Washington. I’ve seen political parties who control state-level government having different policy preferences than political parties who control federal-level government and resulting squabbles from often venal politicians and lobbyists.
Once again, Sen. Long speaks to organizing the process, a vague description of the problem, and an almost non-existent indication as to the solutions he has in mind. Debt’s a problem? Why do I feel like extracting some extra portion of the nation’s GDP to those citizens who have been more successful in appropriating it to themselves in order to pay the nation’s bills isn’t on Sen. Long’s mind?
But, interestingly, I recently found out that Sen. Long’s side of things, Citizens for Self-Governance, isn’t the only state convention organizing effort afoot. There is also the Wolf-PAC effort. Rather than debt, states-rights, and allegations of federal tyranny; the Wolf-PAC is calling for a state led convention in order to pass an amendment that would permit campaign finance regulations and overturn Supreme Court decisions that overturned campaign finance regulations.
Would Long’s group be willing to join forces with Wolf-PAC in order to get the necessary number of states?
In any case, I don’t think any of us should get behind these efforts unless we have a very good idea of the policy solutions the organizers want to propose. I haven’t seen that out of Sen. Long’s group. Give me sample amendment language you anticipate supporting. If it has to be tweaked later, fine. But we shouldn’t be buying a pig-in-a-poke.
The last time a group of citizens got together to modify the US form of government was in 1787, and although the document they came up with had some serious weaknesses it was reasonably serviceable and with amendments worked OK.
However, over the long haul, ours happens to be the only strong president government that hasn’t succumbed at least once to a coup or revolution, and a frequent harbinger of such collapses has been gridlock between the legislative and executive branches.
So maybe a fresh consitutional convention is in order. I’d suggest a parliamentary form of government with a Prime Minister as head of government and a head of state that is mostly ceremonial, but still with the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections. Perhaps Queen Elizabeth would be so kind as to appoint a governour general for us?
There should have been some default clause in the current Constitution, whereby if enough people view the current system as inconvenient or not to their liking, the whole works reverts back to British ownership. That, being not the case, if Mr. Long can’t find the current Constitution to his liking, it’s time for his tenure as legislator to come to an end. Time for another activity to find fame and fortune, like Wal-mart greeter or something.
So wait – the guy who just allowed the raiding of the Major Moves Trust Fund is worried about the debt. Right.
I just wish Senator Long would focus on other matters, like why the only jobs that come to Indiana are seemingly for distribution warehouses or call centers.
Let me get this right. It’s NOT okay for Washington to enact laws incentiving states to ante-up for programs the federal government think are important for our citizens…but it IS okay for the State government to target Marion County and take away self-governance? Got it.
Interesting point is that if you talk to about any local government official in Indiana (county, town/city, school, township, etc.) you will likely hear the same type of comments about over reaching into local affairs (mandates, restrictions, take overs, etc.) that we hear Mr. Long accuse the federal government of doing, Interesting, but he presided over the series of laws that stripped local government while concentrating more power at the state level, interesting.