Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cutting Off Congress and Saving Our Country
Watching the floundering and fecklessness of our Congress, observing their throwing fiscal responsibility to the wind, and realizing that the most important agenda they have is to be re-elected, I wanted to help find a way to help transform Congress and its effects on this country. And I think I’ve found a way.
For months, I have been struggling with a decision. It’s about getting involved with an organization, and I am not a joiner. Nor do I like to make commitments that I might not be able to keep. I also want there to be a likelihood of the organization’s success.
I’ve written a bit before about the Convention of States. Initially I was skeptical about their goals, and their chances of success. But the more I read about them, the more impressed I was with not only their plans, but also with their anticipation of roadblocks and ways to overcome them.
If you haven’t heard of them, the organization was formed based on Article V of the Constitution:
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a convention to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, ‘limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.’
I was especially impressed with their strategies for keeping the COS from going off the rails. They’ve designed an orderly and practical process for initiating, conducting and completing the process.
But in spite of my initial enthusiasm, I began to have questions that weren’t being answered by the FAQ’s of the organization. So instead of continuing to dither around, I decided to ask about the questions I was struggling with.
One of my biggest concerns was that Congress would simply ignore or table the application completed for a COS. I learned that Article V has already been addressed in the courts, including United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), so if Congress tries to sabotage or ignore the process, it will be sued.
When I asked how a lawsuit would be pursued, I was told the following by COS staff:
This is settled law and that quote came from Michael Farris who is one of our co-founders and a constitutional attorney who practices before the Supreme Court. In fact, he is the only living attorney who has argued Article V case law before the court and is an authority in such matters. Generally, a state attorney general would file suit and the other 33 states would then join the suit, but that is highly unlikely that Congress would act in such a way because too many members know this and are endorsers of our project. The current Speaker of the House is a supporter and was in the LA state legislature when we passed our application there.
To date, 19 states have approved the Convention of States, and at the beginning of 2024, at least 11 more states have presented the resolution to their state legislatures.
* * * *
So, I’ve made my decision, in spite of my reservations about group-joining, and I officially joined. I crossed over the finish line when I saw the jobs they offer volunteers—they needed writers! I felt I was a good fit for the kinds of writers they needed.
I hope they agree.
Published in Politics
Stina, help me out. I’m still not satisfied with the answers I’m getting. Yes, revocation of the 17th could remove the Walkintg Dead senators–but what if the state legislatures decide someone is too precious to lose? Wouldn’t term limits take care of that problem?
Public goods only.
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/market-failure-and-the-role-of-government/externalities-topic/a/public-goods-cnx
No inflation.
We are too dumb and corrupt to do social security and medicare.
Excellent analysis.
Term limits were a disaster in California. The whole state is run by the bureaucracy, lobbyists, and unions.
The 17th amendment was about some corruption issue. I don’t think it netted out.
If someone is too precious to lose for the state than it is because they have value to the state. If the citizens of that state have issue with their senator, they can petition their state government or turn over their legislature through election – something far easier to do when it is accomplished in many districts and not the whole state over. Nancy Pelosi remained in power because a giant blue district or 2 run by one party played around with name recognition and low information voters and possibly corruption. For the longest time, CA’s legislature was more divided than that (RCV has affected that). If the legislature was in charge of picking the senator, it wouldn’t matter if the name was popular enough to win a statewide election among low info voters (with the dense areas having outsized influence). It would matter if the person would push the same issues the majority of the state legislature wants and popularity among the masses be damned.
A major part of democratic politics is getting your name known through marketing campaigns. For the Low Info Voter, name and party matters more than policy. So money plays a big role in marketing and longevity in office plays a major role in accumulating money and name recognition. So the longer someone is in office, the easier it is to accumulate money for the marketing campaign to boost your already well known name.
As a representative, the marketing shifts from low info voters to convincing a small group of well informed (maybe) people that you will represent their interests. Maybe money gets involved in greasing palms, but I think that’s a better Devil to deal with than what we currently have.
Money accumulation in the senate is significantly greater than in the HoR because 3-4 senators is more influential than 3-4 congress-critters. The smaller the pool, the less you need to corrupt to ruin the batch. Hence why you want to keep more power separated than together. If the legislature picks the senate, an influential lobby needs to corrupt the majority of state representatives in 25+ states, either through bribery or wide-spread election fraud in a majority of districts in order to control the senate. With state-wide elected senators, the influential lobby needs to corrupt 25+ individuals, either through bribery or targeted election fraud in 1-2 districts per 25 senators (which is actually 13 states because each state elects 2 senators, so corrupting 13 districts’ elections can get you 25+ senators).
For me, this is about national security and government integrity just as much as it is about representative government and stability. The ease of stealing an election should factor into the calculus. If it’s easier to corrupt in one way than another, than you should be opting for the more difficult method.
Great analysis. The 17th amendment is terrible.
I see your point, but picking CA doesn’t help your argument. If the state legislature is overwhelmingly blue, why would you think they would pick better US senators?
There are a lot of GOP in the legislature that they would have to negotiate with.
Yes! A Senator appointed by the state legislature essentially represents the government of that sovereign state and its interests in the Senate. He doesn’t represent the people of that state. That is an essential difference.
I’m all for people fighting to revoke the 17th amendment, but I haven’t seen any arguments that convince me that its removal is essential for a COS to work. I truly want people to weigh in on this topic. Earlier we discussed the fact that Senators chosen by the State legislatures are more likely to represent state interests, and that is a convincing argument. But that’s aside from what a COS works to accomplish.
So you’re comfortable with a senator being chosen by a blue state legislature to represent their agenda? I don’t think that’s the way I’d want to go. And I suspect there are a lot of blue states that would love to control senator selection that way.
We’re not saying that it’s necessary for an Article V Convention to work. We’re saying that if we’re going to have such a Convention, this is one of the items that needs to come out of it and sent to the States. Sure, throw in term limits and what have you, but repeal of the 17th (and the rest of the Progressive Era Amendments) is needed to restore a Federal system.
Doesn’t matter if I’m comfortable with it. A “blue state” legislature likely elects a “blue” Senator in our current system anyway.
What matters is restoring the balance of power between the sovereign states and the central government in what purports to be a Federal Republic. Anything beyond that is just a bonus.
If that is representative of the state, yes. But the problem with what we have now is that not one state is ACTUALLY blue legislatively. Which is why a convention of states would potentially yield different results than congress passing an amendment – because the state legislatures are in charge of calling a convention, not the one person voted by popular vote.
That’s where the issues are. Look at an electoral map and see the difference between red and blue districts. If a state is TRULY blue, their state legislature is far more representative of that than their popularly elected senator is.
And yes, if the blue senator ACTUALLY represents the state, then that is their prerogative. I care about the representation and security of our elected offices more than what the result is… and so should you. The goal isn’t to jerry-rig a system in which republicans always win. That’s not any more representative than a deep blue senator winning in a deep red state.
Actually, someone did say that. But I shouldn’t have assumed he spoke for everyone!
Ah, you got me, Stina! Yes, I’m so accustomed to unfairness that I forgot myself. Seriously, thanks for the reminder.
The 17th amendment is why calling ourselves a Democratic Republic is a misnomer. We are democracy more than we are a republic because of the 17th. We have the president and senators elected popularly while the HoR remains representative. And Judicial might as well be democratic as their appointment resides in the president and senate.
How? Seniority in the Senate will still provide as much influence as before. What state will be foolish enough to forego that?
Current thing they rest on is name recognition. That matters less when 50 people are choosing.
What do you think the ultimate goal of COS is, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure it isn’t hijacked by more powerful, but less wholesome special interests?
There’s a lot of myth there. Cities are complicated and messy, especially in the U.S. More people means, more diversity, more criminal behavior (whether that’s drinking, drugs, prostitution), but also more art, better libraries, bigger churches, better schools, hospitals and concert halls. Most importantly, more, better, and higher paying jobs. That’s true whether they’re in “blue” states or “red” ones. And it’s always been that way in history throughout the world.
There’s a built-in “safety,” if you will: All proposed Amendments from an Article V Convention have to ratified by 3/4 of the States, just like proposed Amendments coming from Congress. Not perfect, but it’s what we got.
If the legislatures think someone is too precious to lose, why would that be a problem?
If they are overwhelmingly blue then that is presumably the preference of the voters in that state. The goal is to have as many red states as possible to limit the harm that blue states do.
What is the alternative. We have 50 blue senators as it is. If there are 25 blue states then nothing changes. But if there are only 15 truly blue states, then it is a 70-30 advantage for red state policies.
I disagree with this. Some is true but not here in SC.
Embrace the power of “if”. Changing the process of selection changes the composition and may have impacts on the current rules, which are modifiable.
If you read the post and comments, that will tell you a lot. Or go to conventionofstates.com. Also, 34 states have to sign on to the original application, and 38 states have to ratify any amendments proposed. That’s a pretty high bar for someone who wants to ransack the process.
No one is truly that precious, IMHO.
Term Limits are great idea. In Texas, our state house is run by a RINO and the speaker position has a lot of power. A bad guy like that would ensure a bad Senator.