Request for my readers:

Take a look at this American Policy Center article on the danger of a supposed move for a Constitutional Convention. Keep in mind the entries I've done on the subject here at Webster's.

It seems to me that the APC is applying a couple of conflicting standards regarding the Article V Convention, but I could be wrong. The APC certainly employs persons a lot smarter, and more in 'the know' than yours truly.

Let me know what you think in a comment to this entry.

Read More

Birth Certificate-Gate cont.; what does it mean?

This whole issue with Hussein O.'s missing, vaulted, sealed, protected, non-existent, whatever, authentic birth certificate is finally beginning to get some attention, even among skeptics. And by the way, I'm not berating anyone for their initial skepticism on this complicated issue. A healthy degree of skepticism concerning an issue as grave as this is never bad. But we should not allow a healthy amount of skepticism on the validity of the claims against the legitimacy of BHO's posted birth certificate to turn extreme and thus prevent us from discovering the truth of the matter, whatever that truth turns out to be. We must realize that there actually are people out there who would literally stop at nothing, including the doctoring (or the actual manufacture) of Obama's COLB, to install him as president.

To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, our leaders and the people behind them are as honest as anyone else, and not more so.

So you're going to tell me you've not met up with innumerable dishonest people during the course of your lifetime; people capable of forging their own false identification documents for their own perceived self-interested purposes, and others who help them do so for their own purposes? If so I simply say to you that you ain't been around long, and/or, you ain't been paying attention.

But for those of you who have experience enough to better inform you, let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.

Well, respectfully to Mark, liberal domination in America notwithstanding, I do not think that is a very likely scenario. Why? Let's just say that the majority of states voted against, not for Obama. Mark's fear reminds me of the fear among many, conservatives in particular, to petition Congress for an Article V Convention to propose amendments. Such fears render us impotent to protect ourselves and our interests, and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution intended for the purpose, effectively null and void.

But I'd be very interested in your take. What do you think would likely happen if the above scenario became reality?

Read More

Alliances to save the country

In an age in which we're seeing our country's constitutional principles being flouted from on high as just so many words that no longer apply because conditions have changed and we're so much more enlightened now than our fathers were (Ha!), and in which we see little, if any, resistance at the lower levels to these impositions on us from those that quite literally have no power that WE do not lend them, temporarily, under the conditions that they use them wisely and properly and honor the conditions of their oaths; when someone comes along saying he will begin advocating for a restoration of the federal principle in an effort to save the country from impending doom, that person is tugging at my heart strings:

Dr. Yeagley wrote:

I'm going to start campaigning for states rights. Maybe we can plug in the US Constitution at that level. Washington is truly hopeless at this point.

Good to have you onboard, Dr. Yeagley! Without a restoration of the federal principle in America, we are truly doomed. While you're at it, please consider joining forces with those of us who advocate for an Article V Convention for proposing amendments.

There is a Constitutional process, little known to most Americans and never yet exercised, for wresting power from the central government back to the states and to the People where it rightly belongs. And it is tailor made for such a time as this. Indeed, times like these is the very reason the founders inserted this little known gem into the Constitution. This process is, as I dubbed it for my own purposes years back when I first discovered it, "The state initiated method" for proposing amendments, which is to say that it only involves Congress and the national authority as acting on the sidelines, so to speak. The People, by merely calling such a convention, assert themselves and their authority over the national government.

It would involve no less than what George Washington described in his Farewell Speech as "a solemn act of the whole People of the United States," simply to initiate, much more to see it through to its end. At this very moment in time we have the required number of states (two thirds) to initiate this method on something like the FMA if we so choose, and probably enough states to meet the requisite number required (three fourths) to ratify such an amendment. But my preference would be to initiate the process under some overarching banner under which would fall such amendment proposals as the FMA, review of the judicial power, and so forth.

In the end what I personally should like to see by this method a propping up of the ninth and tenth amendments; a reassertion of the principle that power emanates from the People, not from the unaccountable and despotic central government.

I've written about it many times, and several times recently, at my blog and elsewhere if you or any of your readers care to check it out.

Read More

New Article by FOAVC co-founder

Friends of the Article V Convention co-founder Joel S. Hirschhorn has written a new article, the entirety of which he posted in a comment to my October 14 entry You want a solution? Here ya go.

As the blogger comment section isn't designed to accomodate a full length article, and since the "recent comments" feature of this blog seems to have some kind of a glitch which allows it to post new comments only intermittently, I've re-posted the article below.

Thanks to Mr. Hirschhorn and to all the folks at FOAVC for the fine work they're doing there advocating for an Article V Convention. Ours is the beginning of a new alliance I'm sure.

When the Federal Government Fails the People

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

The hardest thing for Americans to do right now in this presidential election season is to fight distraction and, instead, focus on the failure of all three branches of the federal government. And also to resist the propaganda masquerading as patriotic obligation that voting will fundamentally fix the federal government. The real lesson of American history is that things have turned so ugly that electing a new president and many new members of Congress will at best provide band-aids when what is needed is nothing less than what Thomas Jefferson wisely said our nation would need periodically: a political revolution.

The basis for this view is that the institutions of the three branches have been so corrupted and perverted that they no longer meet the hopes and aspirations embedded in our Constitution.

It is easy to condemn George W. Bush as the worst president in history. The larger truth is that the presidency has accumulated far too much power over the past half century. This has resulted from the weakening of the Congress that no longer, in any way, has the power of an equal branch of government, not that any recent Congress has shown any commitment or capability to execute its constitutional authorities. Concurrently, we have become accepting of a politicized Supreme Court that has not shown the courage to stop the unconstitutional grabbing of power by the presidency and in 2000 showed its own root failure in choosing to select the new president.

Worst of all, modern history has vividly shown Americans that the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the “we the people” and of the states, and has even sold out national sovereignty to a set of international organizations and the greed of corporate-crazed globalization.

The current economic and financial sector meltdown is just another symptom of deep seated, cancerous disease of government that has sold out the public because of the moneyed influence of the corporate and wealthy classes of special interests. The serious disease is a long festering unraveling of the constitutional design of our government. Each of the three branches of the federal government is totally unequal to each other and completely incapable of ensuring the constitutional functioning of each other. Checks and balances have become a fiction.

These sad historic realities have been produced because of an all too powerful and corrupt two-party political machine that has prevented true political competition and real choices for voters. This two-party system has thrived because of corruption from money provided for Democrats and Republicans to maintain the status quo that is the ruination of our constitutional Republic.

Yet the hidden genius of the Founders and Framers was to anticipate how the Republic would most likely unravel under the pressures of money and corruption. Unknown to nearly all Americans is a part of the Constitution that all established political forces have worked hard to denigrate over our entire history. They fear using what is provided as a kind of escape clause in the Constitution, something to use when the three branches of the federal government fail their constitutional responsibilities. What is this ultimate solution that those who love and respect our Constitution should be clamoring for?

It is the provision in Article V to create a temporary fourth branch of the government – in the form of a convention of state delegates – that operates outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court, and that has only one single function: to consider proposals for constitutional amendments, just like Congress has done over our history, but that must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. One of the most perplexing questions in American history that has received too little attention is simple: Why have we never had an Article V convention?

One possible answer might be that what the Constitution requires to launch a convention has never been satisfied. But this is not the case. The one and only requirement is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply to Congress for a convention. With over 600 such state applications from all 50 states that single requirement has long been satisfied. So why no convention?

Because Congress has refused to honor the exact constitutional mandate that it “shall” call a convention when that requirement has been met. Simply put, Congress has long broken the supreme law of the land by not calling a convention, and virtually every political force on the left and right likes it that way. Why? Because they have learned to corrupt the government and fear an independent convention of state delegates that could propose serious constitutional amendments that would truly reform our government and political system to remove the power of special interests and compel all three branches to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

With great irony, the public has been brainwashed to fear an Article V convention despite many hundreds of state constitutional conventions that have never wrecked state governments, and that in countless cases have provided much needed forms of direct democracy that have empowered citizens and limited powers of state governments.

There is only one national, nonpartisan organization with the single mission of educating the public about the Article V convention option and building demand for Congress to convene a convention. It is the Friends of the Article V Convention group that has done something that neither the government nor any other group has ever done; it has been collecting all the hundreds of state applications for a convention and making them available to the public at www.foavc.org.

With a new president and many new members of Congress, now is the ideal time for Americans that see the need for obeying the Constitution and seek root reforms to rally behind this mission of obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention. The new Congress in 2009 should give the public what the Constitution says we have a right to have and what Congress has a legal obligation to provide. Always remember that the convention cannot by itself change the Constitution, but operating in the public limelight it could revitalize what has become our delusional and fake democracy. The main thing to fear is not a convention, but continuation of the two-party plutocracy status quo. Sadly, no presidential candidate, not even third-party ones, has spoken out in support of Congress obeying the Constitution and giving us the first Article V convention.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention and can be reached through www.foavc.org.]

Read More

Draft Amendment

One of the problems with modern America, as I see it, is that we have a government severly out of balance. Recently I've been hitting, rather incessantly, on the fact that the tenth amendment is, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter. This is not a new revelation to me, but more examples of what I've known for years keep coming forth, as is natural under certain conditions.

Let me put it to you this way, whenever Congress, or the federal judiciary can simply declare, with impunity, that a constitutional principle no longer applies because of some arbitrary, extra-Constitutional reason like "Congress has occupied the field and intended a complete ouster" -- a basis on which, unchecked, the central government can overthrow every constitutional right reserved to the states and to the People -- and the states, not to mention WE THE PEOPLE, are not so much as even alarmed by this tendency of the central government to absorb into itself all powers formerly reserved to themselves respectively (re: powers denied the central government), then you have a huge problem on your hands which requires immediate attention and subsequent action.

Under these conditions, the statement "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.," or that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.," is a nice saying'n'all, but really, how are these sayings meaningful; in exactly what way do they, in and of themselves, prohibit the central government from encroaching on the rights of states and of the People? Answer: They don't. Thus the ninth and tenth amendments are dead letters; thus the People and the states wherein they reside are slaves to the central government.

Now, let me be clear, the central government didn't just all of a sudden devise a collusive strategy and conspire to overthrow the Peoples' rights. And even if it had done so, which it didn't, that doesn't mean the People do not themselves bear some, if not most or all, of the ultimate responsibility for what has occured. There's no government in the world, including the United States, that can enslave a free people. And you can quote me on that.

But here is my point:

At some point the People must reassert themselves and rein in their government. And they must, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "create new guards for their future security." The purpose of this "creation of new guards" is obviously to prevent, insofar as is humanly possible, their government from usurping its proper Constitutional authority. It is in this vein that I've drafted the following rewrite of the tenth amendment, U.S. Constitution:

Section I: The People reserve to themselves and to the states wherein they reside all powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Section II: The several states which at any time are part of this union, and from the date of the ratification of this article, shall at every fifth leap year succeeding, call a convention for review of the Constitution, and on the applications to Congress of two thirds of the state conventions for Constitutional review, the Congress shall be compelled to call a convention for addressing the states' concerns. The states shall determine, by two thirds majority vote, and at every third convention interval, by what mode to direct the Congress to act, but the fifth article of the Constitution, or any provision thereof, shall not be infringed.

Section III: The People prohibit review of this article by the Federal Judiciary, or preemption thereof by the United States, but the Judiciary may act as advisory to the Congress.

Readers are welcome and encouraged to try their own hand at it with whichever Constitutional provisions you think most need shoring up. And that was my purpose in the draft amendment above, it is a reassertion of an original Constitutional principle, and a strengthening thereof. Sections II & III reveal yet other purposes.

Read More

Let me reiterate:

If we're really serious about the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment, then let's start talking seriously about a way to actually effect it while simultaneously erecting barriers to abuses thereof by the currently unaccountable national authority. Otherwise I maintain my opposition, not to protecting marriage, but to the FMA.

Call me crazy.

Read More

You want a solution? Here ya go:

The other day VA wrote in an entry at her blog condemning those who seem to have a real talent for being critical of people who would dare complain about the wrongs and injustices perpetrated by our government on the people of America yet do not offer any practicable solutions. It's as if these people think that if you don't have a ready-made point-by-point solution to offer them, then they are duty bound to try to silence you. Meanwhile they offer no solutions themselves, and as VA rightly pointed out in her post, merely engage in that which they so vehemently object to. Where I come from we call that "irrational."

Yes; I've been subjected to the exact same treatment by the exact same type personalities. I personally think these people just simply like to argue for the sake of propping up their own egos. But we must remember, this is the age of the "one-size-fits-all,ten-step program" for solving all your problems. The irony is that there are about a gazillion of these one-size-fits-all, ten-step programs for solving all your problems out there. LOL

But look, if you're one of the aforementioned people and you demand that complainers like myself offer a solution rather than just complain, boy do I have a humdinger for you! It was originally written as a comment to an entry over at Dr. Yeagley's place, but I couldn't get it to post there for some reason so I'm posting it here. But I forewarn you, it ain't no ten-stepper, if that's what you're lookin' for:

TM to Dr. Yeagley:

Dr. Yeagley,

I hope you decide to keep BadEagle.com up and running. As Mike said, we need all the patriots we can get and then some ... now more than ever! Popularity has nothing to do with it, principle has everything to do with it. Genuine Patriots willingly sacrifice themselves in the face of looming danger.

You're right about states' rights. The re-establishment of federalism as a governing principle in America is vital to our ultimate survival. Speaking of which, I think I need to return to my roots; to the fundamentals. It used to be, not so long ago, that I refused to refer to the national government as the "federal government," it being incorrect from a historical and an originalist perspective to refer to the national entity as anything other than just that. Using the term "federal government" is incorrect terminology precisely because there's nothing "federal" about a centralized national government which has more or less destroyed the federal principle in America. It's really a contradiction in terms. The correct denomination for the form of government the (original) U.S. Constitution establishes is a "Federal Representative Republic." Words mean something, and if we don't resolve to use these words properly as they apply to our government, the average American Joe will always associate the word "federal" with the national government, and will continue to operate in a brain dead world in which he has no clue what the founders intended by the term "federal;" he'll never understand the national-federal structure that the constitution establishes, and so on and so forth.

On this idea of secession...

While I think secession is an option which has to remain open to us, it is a last resort option because it means nothing less than all-out civil war. Can you imagine what an all-out 21st Century American civil war would look like?! It would make our other civil war look like child's play. So the secessionist movement (which seems to be gaining some momentum, by the way) in America is, in and of itself, an ill-conceived movement in my opinion. To repeat what's already been said before, "be careful what you wish for." As someone named Jake put it in a comment to a recent LA Times story about the secessionist movement,

"if we could somehow restore to the states enough rights to check the power of the federal government, secession would not be needed."

Jake is on to something here. He realizes that secession has to remain an option -- a last resort option -- to us, but I think I detect in his tone that Jake is effectively saying "there has to be a better way; surely someone knows of a way to restore the federal principle while avoiding the awful spectacle of an American civil war that secession from the union would most definitely bring about."

Happily for all of us there is such an option, a constitutional option, that we've never, as a unified group of states under the banner of a singular purpose, tried before. It's a little gem tucked away in Article V, U.S. Constitution that few Americans even know about. There are two legitimate ways, you see, of proposing amendments to the constitution, either the Congress does it within itself, or, the People do it through their state legislatures. Either way, though, the constitutional prescription must be followed. That simply means, in the latter case, that two thirds of the states must petition Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. In such a case, the language of the article states that the Congress "shall" call a convention. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 85 the language of this method to mean the obvious, that the language is preemtory, that it leaves no discretion to Congress. In other words, if these conditions are met, Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments. I should also clarify that this is not the same thing as calling a "constitutional convention," in which the whole of the constitution would be considered for revision or alteration. It is simply what the language in the article describes it as, a convention for proposing amendments, and if certain of those amendments are adopted by three fourths of the states then they become part of the constitution.

There are several reasons we should advocate for this method, and this method only, of setting our government aright, not the least of which is that it is the only method available to us that would effectively require the sanction of the whole people of the United States and would thus set off a nationwide debate involving all Americans of all ranks who have enough moral fortitude left in them to give a hoot about the life destroying nature of our present government. Many apathetic Americans would thus be aroused to make a contribution to the cause because they would know that their contribution would actually mean something, something significant.

Now, I'm well aware that there's an element out there ('conservatives' in particular) that fears basically any attempt or design to alter or change, or even clarify our constitution, and therefore, in knee-jerk fashion anytime the idea is brought forth, tries to quell it with loud declamations and ominous predictions about what amending the constitution portends. I admit that I'm not real sure what it is these people are trying to conserve. I've shown many many times that the ninth and tenth amendments aren't worth the paper they're written on, thus the U.S. Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. The ink was barely dry on the fourteenth amendment before the courts began to use it to destroy the last vestiges of freedom left to the states and to the People -- those constitutional rights and principles that the civil war itself did not destroy. I don't know about you and your readers, but I should rather live under a form of government in which I'm relatively sure what the terms and conditions are as opposed to a form of government in which its agents pretend it to be one thing yet is something altogether different in reality.

Let the debate begin...

Now if someone will come along and kindly reduce this solution to ten separate steps under one overarching purpose, then we can have a gazillion and one of these programs in existence. Any of you criticizers, you cynics and detractors out there wanna give 'er a shot, hmmmm? Thought not.

Read More

Secession movement gaining momentum?

(Note: The first three paragraphs in this entry are mainly intended for the benefit of new readers who may happen on the entry. Those who well know my position on the issue will find the aforementioned paragraphs rather cumbersome reading. I therefore encourage you to skip ahead. -TM)

This idea of secession is a subject we've broached before, here and elsewhere. I don't see much point in rehashing old arguments, but I do think there's a scenario related to this issue definitely worth rehearsing. My view is simply this, voluntary union implies the right to secede from the same when the union abdicates its responsibility to uphold its end of the bargain. Beyond that, even if a state or a group of states is forcibly obliged to remain in the union, such as it is, this is only a temporary arrangement so long as these states are occupied by self-governing independent lovers of freedom.

This issue was not settled, as folks who prefer to see things the way they wish them to be as opposed to the way they are, would have it, for once and for all time when the North won the war between the states. It was settled temporarily, not permanently. As the Continental Congress, through Mr. Jefferson's pen stated it, "but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..." To advance the idea of voluntary union on one hand, and on the other to deny the right of the states to secede from the union is a contradiction in terms. Thus the United States, such as it is in the opinions of many of her citizens, is a contradiction in terms. Does it really surprise anyone that people would eventually begin to realize it?

Now, if you personally don't have a problem with being compelled to be party to an agreement in which the other person or entity breaks the terms of the contract at pleasure, or, compelling others to do so while you support the violation of the agreement by the union, well, I guess to each his own, as they say. For me personally that simply ain't my style, and it never will be my style, under any circumstances or conditions, period. And by the way, if you're one of those people that can only see secession through the lens of what little you happen to know about the 19th century war between the states, the causes that led up to it and so forth and so on, and you feel compelled to argue with me on those grounds, don't expect a reply from me. I've been down that road before, and I'm simply not interested in having a long protracted and distracting discussion with you over the merits of either side's position in that war. Even if we agree it's still a distraction from the issue at hand, and invariably whenever I entertain this tack it goes on and on and on like the Energizer bunny; the core of the issue and the whole point of the article is thereby undermined. Therefore, and on second thought, rather than simply ignoring you should you choose to defy my request, I'm just going to delete your post. Fair enough? It's in the interest of all of us that I do so, just trust me. That said, let us get on with the task at hand...

I was turned on to this LA Times article earlier at Vanishing American's. In a comment to VA's entry I wrote the following:

VA, I don't think I could agree with you more on the idea that we have to start somewhere and the internet and blogging is as good a place as any. Indeed, I've often said that the advent of the computer age couldn't have come at a better time.

I think, historically, we're in pretty good company.

Also, I've advocated for a state initiated Article V Constitutional Convention before, but most seem to think it's a rather wacky idea. There are all kinds of reasons people view it that way, some of which are sensible enough. But for me personally it makes more sense than secession, which will, no doubt, result in civil war. Of course civil war may prove unavoidable in the end, but I think we should strive to exhaust the peaceful constitutional options before considering secession.

I'm reminded here of Hamilton's words in Federalist no. 1:

This idea by adding the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism will heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be decided by a judicious estimate of our true interests, uninfluenced and unbiased by considerations foreign to the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished for than seriously to be expected. ...

Incidentally, I've been reading The Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury by his daughter Diana Fontaine Corbin. There's a chapter in the book concerning the civil war and Maury's choice, as a Southerner, to resign his commission in the U.S.N. and accept a commission in the C.S.N. Of course, when Maury went with the South the North put a price on his head, and it remained on his head for some time after the civil war had ended. It's very interesting how Maury used his influence and renoun to try to help his defeated Southern brethren relocate to more favorable environs...

By all means, read VA's article to get some perspective on my comments. Also, read the LA Times article to get some perspective on VA's entry. But for our purposes here I want to focus on something someone said in a comment to the Times article,

19. The ugly fact is that as long there is a United States, with the Federal Government in DC having essentially ALL power and rights, the American war machine wll roll on. If it is not stopped, it will get much worse. And just like every other insatiably expansionistic empire, it will eventually turn on its citizens in ways much more brutal than most Americans can allow themselves to believe. If somehow we could have states with enough rights to check the power of the Federal Governemnt, then secession would not be required.

Submitted by: Jake Shoor
6:22 AM PDT, September 11, 2008

particularly the last sentence in Jake's submission. Jake said: "If somehow we could have states with enough rights to check the power of the federal government, then secession would not be required."

I think I detect in Jake's comments the same sort of reticence I feel about the idea of seceding from the union of these states, and I sense in his tone that Jake is saying "there has to be a better way, surely someone can come up with and advance a better, more hopeful solution than secession."

Amen Jake!

There are few things that I'm absolutely and without a doubt convinced I'm right about, but here's one of 'em, and you can quote me on this -- there's no way in hell that a group of states in this union could possibly secede from the union and coexist on the same continent within the same broad borders with it peacefully. Like I said in my comments to VA's post, secession equals civil war, no doubt about it. Are we such an ignorant and ungovernable lot that we refuse to acknowledge the lessons history has to offer us, or is it that we're just spoiling for a fight, a fight that we'll no doubt be sorry we got ourselves into without first exploring other viable options which might actually effect far better results with immeasurably less bloodshed, loss of life, bitterness between one side and the other, etc. If we're forced into a civil war, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we provoke a civil war by ignoring or simply dismissing alternatives to secession, and/or advancing and prematurely following through with the idea that secession is THE ONLY WAY to rectify the wrongs committed against us, then which side, pray tell, condemns itself with having committed the greater sin?

The old question, phrased a bit differently, eventually makes its way back to be answered again in the course of human events, "is a given society of men really capable of establishing good government by reflection and choice, or is it destined to depend for its political constitutions on accident and force?" The front end of the question has been answered in the affirmative, and Americans are the great beneficiaries of that unique heritage. As Noah Webster wrote: "The government of the United States is the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles. ..." We Americans are also the great beneficiaries, if we choose to acknowledge them, of the lessons afforded us by an affirmative answer to the latter half of the question as I've stated it above. It may well be, therefore, that the question is better restated thus: "For how long can a given society of men sustain good government established by reflection and choice, and what method is best utilized to rebuild it to its former greatness while there remain remnants left to build from?" Obviously the latter part of the question is hereby made of primary concern to us. As to that which precedes it, it has been remarked before that "the ink had barely dried on the constitution before unprincipled men began to seek inroads to undermine the principles contained therein."

But let's consider Jake's appeal for a second. Is it possible that we could somehow restore to the states enough rights to check the power of the federal government thus avoiding the awful prospect of a modern civil war in America? Additionally, if, as is intimated in the Times article, Americans are becoming more and more disgruntled about the state of things in America and the federal government's contribution to that state of things, so much so that they're beginning to advocate for and favor the breaking up of the union at the hazard of civil war, as many of the commenters to the Times article seem to be, might it be possible that we could somehow turn them on to a better solution than secession and that they might be preferentially receptive to it; a solution that, unlike its counter proposal, at least gives us a shot at avoiding the prospect of another American civil war; a solution that carries with it a reasonable prospect of satisfying at least several of their complaints; a solution that would guarantee that each state in this union, and the citizens thereof, would have its fair hearing in the matter?

There is such a solution my friends. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work. I'm not even saying it's likely to work. I am saying that we're morally bound to do all in our power to effect it before we go off half-cocked advocating for secession. I've advocated for this alternative approach many times before, both publicly (as in on this and other blogs) and privately with various and sundry individuals of various and sundry ranks in our society. It is a radical idea ("radical" in the sense that it breaks from the normative way in which we're accustomed to trying to deal with these issues), but not nearly as radical as the idea of secession. And it's a constitutional solution, not merely an implicit but an explicit constitutional solution -- a constitutional solution that has, perhaps miraculously, survived the onslaught brought about by the introduction and subsequent misapplication of the fourteenth amendment -- that we've never tried before, probably due in part to the fact that most Americans don't know anything about it.

Here's something else you can quote me on, when it gets down to where the rubber meets the road there'll be two, and only two, meaningful factions in the war that secession would precipitate. Whichever one of them prevails in the end will subjugate the other to its own idea of what the union should be and its form of government, just as happened with our other civil war. What that means is simply this, you can't break up this union for any period extending beyond the actual conflict itself, it's simply not possible except in theory. There are various irrefutable reasons for this which may come forth in an ensuing discussion on the topic, but the simple fact of the matter is as I said, it's a hopelessly impossible idea which could never be put into actual practice, this idea that the national government can ever be dissolved in favor of a confederated system of some sort and of some unspecified number.

What can be done, however, is that we can strengthen the bonds of the union by returning to the Jeffersonian principle of "as to ourselves several, as to others, one." And let us remember, my friends, particularly those of you who have a very favorable attitude towards secession and use the founders' words to justify your position, our founders had no other option available to them than to either submit to the arbitrary authority of King George and kiss their chains, or, to "dissolve the political bands" which had connected them with the mother country. Thankfully they were wise enough and had enough knowledge and forethought to secure to us, their posterity, a more favorable position than they found themselves under similar circumstances:

But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

[...]

These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience. It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquility with those who affect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. ... I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.

One more thing: There's an element in this country (I know you're out there because I've argued with you more times than I care to count) that is in a seeming perpetual state of self-induced denial about the fact that, particularly under the volatile conditions which exist in America today, that the fires of civil war could be ignited almost instantaneously, and certainly before anyone could do anything to stop or reverse it. It just takes the right conditions for an unmanageable fire to break out, and I'm telling you, most, if not all of the requisite conditions for the actuality of a civil war already exist in this country. I can't do anything about it if you choose to stick your head in the sand ignoring all the signs around you. But I don't have to be party to it, and I certainly don't have to tolerate it at my blog. So please, save us all a lot of trouble and resist the impulse to go there.

Read More

Toward a Federal Marriage Amendment

With the all-out radical leftist assault on traditional marriage in full force in this country, we're hearing again that what we need, what we must have is a Federal Marriage Amendment to save traditional marriage in America, and everything will be ok. I personally have resisted this approach since the debate was first nationalized on the grounds that amending the U.S. constitution to define marriage would have, good intentions notwithstanding, unintended consequences serving to add yet another twenty miles of pavement to the federal super-highway to hell. And through the clearing that's already taken place ahead, I can see the utter desolation of its final destination from here.

Nonetheless, and given my view of the sacredness of traditional marriage and why it must be protected, not only do I question my own position -- a position which pits me against respected traditional marriage advocates like Dr. Dobson, and Don Wildmon of AFA, and Lawrence Auster, and etc... -- on the FMA from time to time, but at certain times, given the popularity of the federal approach to protecting marriage among the more well known and well respected advocates of traditional marriage in this country, I get the feeling that ultimately the FMA might be the only method that the majority can agree on.

However, via John Savage's latest post in his recent series of entries concerning traditional marriage (see here, here, and here), I'm led to this 4-W entry on the topic and Lydia McGrew's comments concerning the FMA.

Lydia writes:

On purely (and I do mean purely) prudential grounds, I recommend state amendments. I worry about what a federal amendment would be used to do. There is a sense in which writing an amendment to the federal Constitution is like handing the federal courts a blank sheet on which they will write whatever they like. One doesn't mean to do that, but it could come to that. For example, if a federal amendment doesn't prohibit civil unions, some crazy federal court could rule that that means states _must_ have civil unions, or recognize other states' civil unions. And so forth. In my own state, our state Supreme Court tends to be more disciplined as far as sticking to what laws and the state constitution actually mean rather than telling lies about them.

My sense tells me that Lydia's concerns with the Federal Marriage Amendment are perfectly reasonable and legitimate. We all know that the unaccountable federal courts (and the federal Congress does nothing to prohibit it) love to divine the spirit of the federal constitution, and to mold it and shape it in their own image of what it should be. On the other hand, of course, we all know too that the federal courts aren't particularly disinclined from overthrowing State law when State laws have been molded and shaped by State legislatures whose image of the federal constitution doesn't match up to that of the federal judiciary.

All that aside, though, and as I've written before, the federal constitution provides two methods of amendment in Article V. Now, currently we have 27 separate State marriage amendments on the books in this country, and several others in the making. And with the most recent leftist assaults on the institution of marriage and the absolute certainty that the onslaught will continue in more radical ways than we've even seen thus far (this is the nature of liberalism; the less radical it needs to be to effect its purposes, the more radical it gets), I predict that this number of States with marriage amendments attached to their constitutions is going to grow significantly in the relatively near future. Indeed, I'm almost willing to bet that it will grow large enough over the next, say, five years, to meet the requirements laid down in Article V to at least initiate a Federal Convention for proposing amendments, if not see it through to its end.

So here's my question for all the strong advocates of the FMA. If we must have a Federal Marriage Amendment, wouldn't it be better for the States to force Congress to call a Convention on the subject, than for the people to pressure the federal Congress to pass the FMA; isn't this the more (to borrow from Lydia) prudent approach to which our advocacy of a Federal Marriage Amendment, if we must have one, should be directed?

Read More

Amending the Constitution - the right way

(Update: The commenter calling himself "statusquobuster" has provided us with the url to the site of a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention," or FOAVC. I've embedded the hyperlink to the site, as you can see, within the group's name itself. Y'all be sure and check it out, there's some interesting information I certainly wasn't aware of gathered at the site.)

My good friend, Mike Tams, has a nice post up over at the AFB concerning the Article V provisions for amending the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, constitutionally. Since this has been one of my favorite topics of discussion ever since I first discovered the distinctive provisions of Article V a few years ago, Mike's post really resonates with me...

As I said in my comments to the post, there are basically three methods of amending the constitution, only two of which are provided for in Article V. The other method - the liberal method - is illegitimate precisely because it is in the truest sense of the term "extra-constitutional." And by the way, my fellow AFBers know that when I hear the term "unconstitutional" bandied about, by liberals or conservatives, I usually just dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because first of all to many conservatives, anything "liberal" is considered unconstitutional, and vice versa. And second, since the people retain ultimate and final authority to themselves, it is they themselves who will ultimately determine what is or isn't "constitutional" either directly or indirectly.

Now, as a conservative and a traditionalist, I find it thoroughly non-traditionalist and non-conservative to alter the existing constitution by any means other than that provided for in the constitution itself. So when liberals use their preferred (extra-constitutional) method of amending the constitution -the federal courts- so effectively in establishing as dominant the destructive ideology of liberalism in America, I can think of but one proper, legitimate, and effective remedy: a constitutional amendment via the second provision of article V restricting the self-destructive influence of liberalism itself - a return to balanced constitutional government. Indeed, if this is not the purpose of having a written constitution, not to mention the second of the article V provisions itself, then I don't know what is.

And by the way, for anyone wondering what such an amendment would look like, or read like, I'll refer you to Lawrence Auster's skeletal amendment proposal from a couple of months back as I recall. This VFR article is permanently linked in the left sidebar of this blog under the heading Select VFR Articles.

Read More