On the methods, purposes and legitimacy of corrective Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional Scholar, Professor Rob Natelson, has written an interesting article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center concerning State initiated amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, the italicized descriptive I used in the previous sentence I sort of coined several years back when I discovered the procedure while reading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Natelson's descriptive is a bit different than my own, whereas it is denominated in his article the state-application-and-convention method -- a minor piece of trivia that only matters if someone is interested in searching the archives of this blog for my own posts on the topic of State initiated amendment proposals. Anyway,...

Below is a relevant excerpt from Natelson's article.

Mr. Natelson writes:

The Founders created the state-application-and-convention process primarily as a way to rectify federal abuses of power. The Founders recognized that clarifying and corrective amendments might become necessary even when the proper reading of the document seemed clear. The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendments all are examples of clarifying and corrective amendments.

Precisely! And I think it may be time for another known as the 28th. Which is Fourteen multiplied by two. Hmm. ;-)

Read More

My conversation with Senator Coburn

Yesterday evening I was able to meet Senator Coburn at a local Town Hall gathering. We had a short one-on-one conversation in a hallway shortly after the meeting was over. Below is an email I sent Senator Coburn today which should serve to explain the content of our short conversation.

Dear Senator,

Amending the constitution is supposed to be the Peoples' last resort method of solving serious constitutional issues before they become crises. A constitutional crisis exists whenever any part of the government simply ignores its provisions or refuses to obey them. Federal law does not necessarily trump State and local law regardless of whether the Congress “occupies a field,” and “intends a complete ouster.” And tacit acquiescence only matters while States are willing to simply “go along.” That is, if the constitution still means anything outside modern interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.

I personally find only one thing in the fourteenth amendment objectionable to myself. Namely the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” By this phrase every other constitutional principle preceding it is effectively declared null and void, with the possible exception of the thirteenth amendment. We still have the original constitution but its principles only mean something in context of the fourteenth amendment citizenship provisions. What portions of it that we still observe in American politics and outside that context are only done as a matter of convenience to the central government. If or whenever it decides to usurp State and local authority in those matters, it will do so through the federal courts via the fourteenth amendment citizenship clauses. Count on it. This is the way things are and have been done for many decades in American politics. And it will not change until an explicit and authentic act of the whole People alters the way the game is played because liberalism dominates our politics whether we like it or not.

Therefore, my idea for amending the constitution to clarify the intent of the fourteenth amendment is far from being the “stupid idea” you said it was when I mentioned it to you this past Thursday in McAlester. Closing the borders is all well and good and I certainly agree that that needs to be done. But has the loudness of our declamations resulted in sealing the borders? Has it stopped this talk about granting amnesty to the tens of millions of illegal immigrants already here? Has it forced attrition on any of them as yet? Has it done anything to solve this “birthright citizenship” for children of illegal immigrants issue? Keep in mind also that I'm not proposing repeal of the fourteenth amendment, only clarification of its intent for our generations.

But there's a much bigger underlying principle you seem to be missing in all of this debate over State immigration laws, and etc. Ultimately it's not about whether the federal government has neglected in the past, or will continue to neglect in the future, its responsibility to protect our borders. No; what this is all about at bottom is that the constitution reserves to the States and to the local governments power to control or regulate a host of items within their own borders, without federal intervention and at their own discretion. Immigration is one of these reserved powers. Several States, including Oklahoma and Arizona, have made worthy attempts in recent years at exercising their discretion in this immigration matter, but to no avail. Simply stated, their most effective efforts have been railroaded by the federal courts who invariably cite the fourteenth amendment citizenship and equal protection clauses as their just cause for usurping the rest of the constitution. This method cannot be allowed to continue much longer or our fate as a nation is already sealed. And if you think you can get the federal courts out of the business of doing this short of amending the constitution to prevent it, well, I think you're very naïve about the power of the federal courts and the ability of anyone to pressure them into anything they don't want to do. As long as the fourteenth amendment exists as the courts have interpreted it, and without clarification from the People, the federal judiciary is going to continue following this pathway of establishing an absolute federal tyranny over these States.

The personality that I am will not allow me to simply complain about a thing without offering a viable alternative to it. Below is my attempt at solving this veritable constitutional crisis before it gets out of hand (it may well already be out of hand) and we're forced into a situation that none of us wants:

A proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to transform the meaning of the fourteenth amendment back to its original intent; to end government by judiciary; to reinvigorate the principles of the constitution as written; to reintroduce the doctrine of reserved powers and to end the practice of admitting to the rights of citizenship at birth persons born in the United States to foreigners illegally residing therein. We introduce this amendment proposal as a means to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.:

Section 1: The fourteenth amendment to this constitution shall not be construed by the United States or by any State to admit to the rights of citizenship, or subject them to their jurisdiction, children born to immigrant parents illegally residing within the United States, or subject to a foreign state, at the time of their birth. Persons born in the United States to alien parents temporarily and legally residing therein shall be subject to all terms and conditions, privileges and immunities, expressly provided for in their parents' visas and the laws of the States wherein they reside. The United States retains the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, but no State shall be compelled by the United States to admit to the rights of citizenship, nor subject them to their jurisdiction, any person or persons involuntarily.

Section 2: No State shall be compelled to house, harbor, educate, provide food or medical services, grant safe passage to or otherwise assist immigrants illegally residing within its borders, nor to conform its laws affecting such residents to the laws of the United States except those made pursuant to the constitution and this article. The exercise of Powers reserved by the constitution to the States or to the People shall be left to their discretion. No reserved power shall transfer to the United States except by process of amendment, but the United States may exercise reserved powers upon application to and express consent of the legislature of the States wherein they propose to exercise them.

Section 3: The Congress is hereby suspended for the term of twenty years from further enacting laws affecting immigrants to the United States or to any State, and no form of amnesty for illegal immigrants shall be granted or recognized during the term of suspension. No State shall be compelled by existing U.S. law to receive immigrants of any race, color, nationality or kinship.

Section 4: Congress shall have power to enforce the terms of this article by appropriate legislation, but no construction of its provisions, or of the provisions of any other article of the constitution which shall be effective at the time of its adoption, shall ever be effective to establishing unconditional federal supremacy in law making, nor shall the provisions of this article affect the citizenship of persons born or naturalized within the United States prior to its adoption.

Section 5: The terms and conditions of this article are hereby exempted from judicial review.

While I certainly understand that issues will be raised with this proposal as written, it forms a good workable model for ending judicial and federal tyranny via the fourteenth amendment in our generation. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a free and balanced constitutional government to work with. What they do with it from there is, of course, up to them.

As I've barely skimmed the surface of how the federal government abuses the fourteenth amendment citizenship provisions to its own purposes, please engage me in further discussion on this matter at your convenience.

Respectfully,

Terry D. Morris Jr.
McAlester, OK

Read More

Social Cons aiding and abetting Congress and the President in destroying America?

Sad to say, but yes, it's true. Evidently unbeknownst to themselves. Indeed, they somehow think they're thwarting the genocidal designs of the federal government by taking issue with the abortion funding in the 'healthcare' bill.

Chiu Chunling's initial comment to the previous entry reminded me of the email notification I received on Nov. 9 from CitizenLink directing subscribers to a 'victory' piece written by CitizenLink editor Kim Trobee. As I indicated in my reply to Chiu's comments, I had intended to do a short write-up about it but it had slipped my mind. Anyway, better late than never I suppose. Here are the last few sentences from the Trobee article:

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

Better still, try these sentences on for size:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Huh?! Educate thyself! Or otherwise get the hell out of the business of attempting to do that which you're ill-equipped and ill-prepared to do in the first place.

This kind of thing is precisely the reason the pro-life lobby is generally looked down on and distrusted by the larger, more well rounded conservative community. And rightfully so in my opinion. They're so obsessed with abortion that they're otherwise rendered ill-equipped and ineffective in protecting the God-given rights of all Americans, including the rights of the unborn. What in heaven's name do they think they're accomplishing with all of this misdirected and ultimately wasted effort? I guess they gotta do something to occupy their time. But is it really necessary for them to engage in counterproductive, counterinuitive behavior as a matter of occupying that time? I suppose so. But I can't see any good reason to just let it go unchallenged.

And "Neutrality"! Someone ought to remove that concept from the American vocabulary. It's about as illegitimate a concept as that associated with the term "amorality." "Neutral," "amoral" -- am I seeing a similarity here? But I digress...

Evidently they can't see that they cannot ultimately win this fight on these grounds. The problem with 'government healthcare' is, well, government healthcare. Not abortion funding, not services provided for illegal aliens, not 'death panels,' etc. Those are all problems, sure, but they're not THE problem. Nor do they combine to form THE problem.

The federal constitution provides no avenue by which the federal Congress may simply effect a hostile take-over of the healthcare industry, such as it is, in America. The only way it can legitimately be done is via the provisions of Article V and a legal transfer of that authority from the states and the People to the central government. Or, to paraphrase General Washington, "by a solemn and authentic act of the whole American People," anything short of which leaves the existing constitution as it always has been, "sacredly obligatory on all." End of story. (BTW, when was it exactly that Washington's Farewell Speech was removed from our political scriptures in America? I must have missed the memo on that.)

But here we have a lobbying group, supposedly "conservative," supposedly "pro-life" which has resigned itself to the idea that the central government is somehow authorized to run roughshod over the constitution at its will and pleasure (not their area of expertise, don't ya know), an idea which defies both its supposed conservatism and its pro-life claims. So instead of attacking the root of the problem as they should if they're going to attack it at all, they go after single provisions in the bill, incidental to THE problem. In this case abortion funding.

The problem here, as we see, is that they're willing to tacitly go along with the blatantly unconstitutional healthcare 'reform' package and the unconstitutional means Congress is using to effect it, so long as the feds make the empty promise, in return for their support (which they claim is a "neutral" position), that no abortion funding will be attached to the bill. That's being "neutral," eh? Could have fooled me. And when (not "if") the feds eventually add abortion funding back into the bill, before or after it becomes "law" -- it matters not -- what will the pro-life lobby do then? Ah, there'll be a bunch of handwringing; a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth issuing forth from these people. That is, until the new wears off or they otherwise tire of it and move on to begging their federal masters not to add additional provisions for the funding of late-term and partial-birth abortions. All the while remaining "neutral" on government-run healthcare, appealing, of course, to their lack of expertise on the subject of the whole enchilada.

Such are the actions of abject slaves, and/or, of would-be totalitarians, not of freemen. And I should like to know how any slave, or group of slaves (granting the pro-life lobby the benefit of the doubt here, only because I don't believe their intentions to be evil), can ever accomplish the goal of protecting the lives and liberties of the relatively strong and healthy among us, to say nothing of the most vulnerable in our society? Ans: They can't. Period.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet? Forbid it Almighty God!

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The CitizenLink article is posted in its entirety beneath the fold.

11-9-09

* Print This Article
* Forward to a Friend


Pro-Life Amendment to Health-Care Reform Passes in House


by Kim Trobee, editor

Representatives vote to prohibit federal funding of abortion.

An amendment prohibiting government funding of abortion in the House version of health-care reform passed on Saturday by a vote of 240-194.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment was the culmination of an effort by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to insert language similar to the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment restricts abortion coverage under Medicaid.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said the coalition of pro-life lawmakers remained determined.

"We felt strongly about it," he said. "We were not going to vote or even let (health care) come to the floor for a vote with language that would fund abortions."

Many Democrats had maintained their plan would not include funding for abortions, but closer inspection revealed it would do just that.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said Democrat leaders spent months "misrepresenting" the plan.

"The bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation," he said. "But, we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

One final note: I don't doubt the sincerity or the 'good intentions' of the pro-life lobby in trying to protect the lives of the unborn by lobbying Congress to remove provisions from the 'healthcare bill' aimed at destroying life and the advancement of the 'culture of death.' The same may be said of those who concern themselves exclusively with the provisions granting services to illegal aliens, and so forth and so on. The point is simply that the efforts and resources of these various groups are horribly misused and misguided. Their interests and that of their followers (not to mention that of the unborn) would be a lot better served if they would direct them to the recommendation and advocacy of the passage of State level nullification laws and otherwise ignore the central government and its unconstitutional actions on health care and a variety of other issues. But we seem to be particularly adept at pursuing such misguided, miscalculated adventures in America. It isn't like the pro-lifers are the only ones doing it.

P.S. Is it just me, or does this whole hopelessly ineffective movement seem to be headed up by emotionally driven ... women? Que the attack dogs.

Read More

Term limits again?!

There's probably not a single political issue out there that unites more disparate factions than the term limit issue. Would-be government reformers seem to align on this issue almost to the man.

A few days ago I was reading a discussion involving term limits at the Tenth Amendment Center. Everyone was pretty much in agreement that we need to install term limits in the federal constitution, but one commenter in particular made the statement that term limits is a "no-brainer." Which is to say that if you don't support the popular idea of term limiting the federal Congress, then you're something like the village idiot.

Well, I must be the village idiot. And village idiot that I am, I dared to challenge this individual on his assumption. Anyway, the moral of that particular story is that if you lack a good workable knowledge of the constitution and its explication in the Federalist Papers, you best not tangle with someone that possesses it. Oh, I was nice about it; I didn't engage in any personal attacks (what would have been the point?). But when I suggested that this individual might want to read the Federalist Papers to gain a better understanding of the federal constitution, and why the framers included certain provisions therein while leaving others out, I was informed that I was the one that didn't understand the constitution, and that the Federalist Papers offered no instruction on the subject because that was the government they (the framers) were trying to improve when they wrote the Constitution. Well, at this suggestion I simply advised that my interlocutor google the terms "Federalist Papers," and "Articles of Confederation," because it seemed he might be confusing the two. These young whipper-snappers!, I don't quite know what to think about 'em sometimes. ;-) I tend to think, though, that the modern educational apparatus in America, with all of its concern about "self-esteem," absolute equality and so forth and so on, has a tendency to bring out the very worst in individuals and they lack a certain humility and deference that is proper for the relatively uneducated and inexperienced to possess. But that's just a theory and it's beside the point...

A few days later the question arose again under a different article at the Tenth Amendment Center. Same basic results -- people jumping on board advocating for a term limit amendment added to the federal Constitution. And again I felt I needed to challenge this position. But let me just say, without going into a lot of detail, that (1) the founders were well aware of so-called "career politicians," the avarice, inrigue, ambitions and so forth that they possess. Yet they still didn't include term limits (modern definition) in the federal constitution. And (2) the constitution the founders created is a complete working system; a system that, like any other system, when you begin mucking around with it making changes and alterations which, on the surface, appear to be "limited" you later tend to find that they have unintended, unforseen negative consequences which affect the whole structure, and therefore the whole effectiveness as to its original intent, of the government as the founders originally designed it. But our founders didn't leave us without explanation on this point of term limiting the federal Congress. We may read something about it in Federalist no. 64, among other places.

But my main point about federal term limits is this -- I personally couldn't ever support a constitutional amendment that alters the original fundamental structure of the federal government, or that undermines its design and its legitimate purpose. We've done that enough times already with everything from "birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens, to the imposition of a federal income tax, to the "democratic" election of our Senators in the 17th amendment, to limiting the terms of presidents, etc. And this is the very reason I've never supported the FMA. I'm a strong advocate of traditional marriage, but I don't want some federal beaurocracy engaging in fraud, waste, and abuse, issuing marriage licenses and taking ultimate control of the marriage issue. No; my consistent position has been that I can never support a given amendment proposal unless it can be shown to be in keeping with the original intent and design of the government. And when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, this popular clamoring for federal term limits is simply an attempt to establish more mob rule. We've got enough of that already, in my humble opinion. Besides, what makes people think that a state like Massachusetts will not replace a Ted Kennedy with a clone of Ted Kennedy as soon as he's out, I will personally never know. If the people can't control themselves without term limits, how in God's name are they going to control themselves with them? And as our founding fathers were quick to point out to us, we can't always know that people are on the right side of an issue for noble reasons, and vice versa. In other words, don't think for a minute that everyone is on board with term limits because they want to "limit" the size and influence of the federal government. Let me tell you something -- probably the vast majority of people vying for federal term limits have an opposite goal in mind. But, you know, we moderns tend to think that democracy is the ultimate in good government.

Read More

Tenth Amendment redux

Numerous entries found in the archives of this blog deal with the Tenth Amendment Resolution movement specifically, and/or otherwise reference the tenth amendment as being, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter insofar as its intent as part of the Bill of Rights is concerned.

In this October 15, 2008 entry I offer a proposal for shoring up as well as maintaining the importance of the tenth amendment for generations to come, and for preventing the judiciary's ruling on the matter.

Here is the text of the proposal as I wrote it in October:

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.

Read More

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

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

Hoosiers don't care about marriage?

Here's a story from CitizenLink on the state of Indiana's Marriage Amendment Proposal. It looks like it's hung up in the State legislature where, if it is killed, as seems to be the promise and intention of some in that body, the proposal will not be on this year's ballot for the Indiana voters to decide.

From the article:

Supporters of same-sex "marriage" say Hoosiers don’t care about marriage and are focused on property tax reform.

I have one thing to say about this statement. If this is the case, then why are you supporters of same sex "marriage" (a contradiction in terms) expending such effort in trying to kill the proposal? It seems to me that if the Indiana voters truly do not care about marriage, traditional marriage, and the protection thereof by lawful amendment to the Indiana Constitution, then you'd certainly want it on this year's ballot so that the voters in Indiana could reject the proposal, overwhelmingly I'm sure, and get on with that business that they truly care about, namely property tax reform, as you claim.

But I'd be willing to bet that when polled on this question of protecting marriage, Indiana voters support amending their State Constitution by a margin of somewhere around 65% to 35% give or take a few percentage points, and this is precisely why you're working so hard to kill this amendment. Let's be honest, eh?

Read More

An amendment proposal to root out the cancerous forgetfulness of the American People

In a comment to a thread at VA's, Chasing the elusive 'Hispanic vote', commenter Matt declares that we need a constitutional amendment establishing English as the official language of the United States.

I can understand why some would think such an amendment a good idea, and I'm not arguing against having an English language amendment attached to the U.S. Constitution, at least not in the abstract. But Matt does not stop there.

Matt Writes:

We seriously need, for starters (since none of these candidates are serious about deporting the illegals), a Consitutional ammendment that says English is the official language of the United States (not a law, since it could be easily repealed). We further need to make it clear in said ammendment that state's laws regarding langauge are null and void (since some people have forgotten state law is trumped by federal law). (emphasis mine)

Matt's concluding sentence reads fine (it's a debatable point which I disagree with, but it reads ok) until we get to his gawd-awful parenthetical reasoning behind his assertion. We need to make it abundantly clear, in proposing and ratifying the English language amendment, says Matt, that any and all State language laws are declared null and void. Why? Because some people have forgotten that state law is trumped by federal law. You're gettin' this, right? If there's a federal law in force, state law dealing with the same issue is automatically trumped by the federal statute, which some people have forgotten, therefore we need to make this fundamental constitutional principle crystal clear to all. And the only way to make it crystal clear is to state it explicitly in the language of the amendment, leaving absolutely no discretion to the states on the issue. Presumably Matt would only have us stating this with regard to this particular amendment until we got to the next amendment Matt thinks necessary to be added to the constitution, then, here again, we'd have to make it explicit (since some have forgotten this) that federal law trumps state law. I think I may have a better alternative; a perpetual reminder to the American People (particularly the forgetful among us) that power and authority emanate from the federal head:

Perhaps the thing to do is to write an amendment up that deals specifically with the issue of federal law trumping state law, since, once again, some people seem to have forgotten this fundamental principle of American Constitutional government? The underlying issue, or, the root cause of the problem, according to Matt, is that some people (presumably a majority of Americans) have forgotten this constitutional principle that federal law trumps state law, correct? If that's the case, I might ask Matt, then why go through the motions of applying a bandaid to the wound. It's not going to heal. It's just going to fester and get worse. The better approach, then, would be to cut out the cancer at its roots, would it not? If so, I submit to Matt that the way to handle this unacceptable forgetfulness Americans display concerning the all-powerful federal government is to state explicitly in the federal constitution that federal law trumps state law unless and until the federal authority, by its good graces, decides that the states are trustworthy enough to make their own laws concerning language or whatever. And of course the fed would have to take into consideration whether or not the states and the people were mindful enough of the absolute authority in all matters, local or otherwise, of the almighty federal government before allowing us to create any laws for ourselves, necessary as they may be. Hence the need for a perpetual reminder, which by all rights should head the Constitution. In other words strike out the old tattered obsolete preamble and insert the new.

In truth I see no problem with this. The ninth and tenth amendments, the principle of federalism and of constitutional government have already effectively been overthrown anyhow, why not make it official?

Read More