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
Embracing the power of if, we can see that repeal of the 17th could make the incumbency/seniority problem even worse. I’m not aware of any legislatures where seniority didn’t count, so how you would change that by any means other than term limits isn’t clear.
I am uncertain about “worse”. Can it be much worse than at present? I would like to hear about what critiques there were of seniority prior to the 17th amendment. It might have been as simple as people died with sufficient frequency due to ill health that there was not a problem. It’s an interesting question. I am raising the potential that the discussion/debate under a COS or simply a repeal of the 17th Amendment would also involve seniority rules and a tradeoff of eliminating seniority (or limiting it in some manner) as a tradeoff to including term limit language. I have no idea — it exists in the land of possibilities, likely never to be explored.
People are selling term limits like they sold the 17th last century. Neither are fixes and are not the fixes we need.
Who would want term limits it we repeal the 17th?
I suppose some would like term limits for Representatives. I don’t see that as a fix. I prefer repealing the 16th & 17th, and constraining the Commerce Clause such that it effectively overturns Wickard v Filburn and to otherwise restrain the Federal Government.
ETA: I don’t think there’s any appetite in Congress for any of this, which is why I hope the COS organization succeeds in getting enough applications from the States to force Congress to call an Article V Amendment Convention.
I don’t think there’s any interest for repealing the 17th. Here’s an interesting thought: could a different COS be formed to revoke the 16th and 17th? It would be another way to amend the Constitution. I wonder…
If COS is trying to get an Article V Convention called and it succeeds, why wouldn’t said Convention try to propose these Amendments, as well as others?
Problem isn’t the constitution but the people
Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™
All Journalists Are Statists™
Isn’t Anyone Upset, That Democrats Have Spent The Last 3 Years Falsely Investigating, Indicting and Persecuting Their Foes?™
The Purpose Of Education Is Indoctrination, And To Steal From The Parents, Students, And Taxpayers™
The Government Is Running Out Of Money™
Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™
wE LiKe lOwer PRiceS fRom autOMatioN aND gLoBaLiZeD tRadE bUT wE neeD inFLation aNyWaY sO mY houSE goEs up.
Their experience tells them that there is an optimal number of amendments to include. One is not enough to garner sufficient interest; more than three make an overly complex agenda. That’s what I understand.
One problem there is likely to be that the seniority stuff is about House/Senate rules that they make for themselves. I doubt any separate law applies, and perhaps COULDN’T apply even if someone wanted to pass them.
I guess that makes sense. But I would also think that since an Article V Convention has never been called (235 years and counting), if we do get one we may want to do as much as possible. We may never get a second one called.
The original Constitution banned direct taxation of citizens by the federal government. Americans were citizens of States that agreed to (ratified) a federalist Republic under the Constitution. There was a fine balance of power between the States and the federal government. By disallowing States to elect Senators via their legislatures that balance was damaged at its heart. This allowed power to national parties that was limited by the direct election of Senators. Senators no longer represent States, but parties.
By allowing the federal government to directly tax citizens we becomes subjects of a federal government rather than free citizens of States that represent us at the National level. We are less free. Other federal government was meant to have to go hat in hand to the States for tax revenue and could only do so on a per state population basis.That provided a buffer between citizens and a rapacious federal government. We as citizens subject to direct taxation by the federal government have no refuge from the heavy hand of the IRS. We can’t move to another State to escape the taxes of the federal leviathan. Nor do we have any respite from our states whose political outcomes are nationalized with campaign money and operatives rolling in from all over the country to buy our elections . So my ‘conservative ‘ State of Georgia winds up with two far left Senators. That would not happen with State legislatures electing Senators.
The list of reasons why those two Amendments were the death knell of. Federalist representative Republuc are very long and include the fact that there is no effective limit at all on Congressional taxing power (see in particular Roberts’ opinion in the Obamacare tax/penalty decision). With no limit on Congressional tax power there is no way that a CoS could begin to roll back our rapacious, insatiable leviathan. Consider the issue of federal taxation of wealth, an extremely bad idea whose time will come. It is a question of when, not if. The country will eventually be destroyed by direct taxation and a federal government that has no bounds. All ready our federalist system is in shambles with a very strong tilt of power toward the Federal government that has used the federal income tax to morph in to the greatest threat to our liberty.
I appear to one of very few who hold this view but I am convinced of its validity and cite 109 plus years of federal tax policy to back up that viewpoint.
COTUS explicitly states that each House makes its own rules. SCOTUS won’t even interfere.
It can always be worse — a lot worse.
The main difference between then and now is that the state and local govenments are now addicted to dollars from the national government. Nobody is going to vote against that, whether senators are elected by state legislators or directly by the people.
I dunno. Don’t some states send more to the feds than they get? They would benefit by keeping the money in-state, not sending it to DC and then getting some fraction of it back. Why wouldn’t they vote for that?
Doesn’t matter. They are addicted to the money from the national government now. Even some of your most conservative people, e.g. the kind who would censure their representative for voting to impeach Trump, are addicted to money from the national government.
This is perfect.
Is it just coincidence that that works out to an acronym of “COC-SOC?”
There’s a bit of an alliteration there, but I didn’t try for the anagram! Pretty cool!
But the implications, oh the implications…
I think SQ is too innocent to catch the direction of your comment 😂 and I’m mildly ashamed I’m not… but I have a 14 year old son, so I’ll excuse myself.
Not unusual for me….oh well…
Ah, geez. Ick.