The November 6 election outcome has many friends of the Constitution dispirited. As so often before, they hoped that by defeating federal candidates contemptuous of constitutional limits and replacing them with others, they could help restore our Constitution.
Obviously, that decades-long strategy has failedโspectacularly.
They also have long hoped that by appointing the right people to the U.S. Supreme Court, they could win case decisions restoring constitutional limits. But after 40 years, that campaign has produced only indifferent results. Actually, worse than indifferent:ย When, through the 2010 Obamacare law, federal politicians overreached further than they ever had beforeโby imposing a mandate ordering almost everyone in the country to buy a commercial productโthe Court didnโt even hold the much-weakened line. Rather, the Court upheld the mandate.
The fundamental fallacy behind the federally-centered strategy lies in assuming federal politicians and federal judges will somehow restore limits on federal power.That is implausible as an abstract proposition. And practical experience over many decades also shows that strategy to be a failure.
There are several reasons for the failure of the federal election strategy. First, for this approach to work, you have to elect a majorityโactually a super-majority (at least 60 in the Senate)โof constitutionalists to Congress. You also have to elect a person of similar views to the presidency. And you have to do this so they are all in office at the same time.
Second, constitutionalists face inherent handicaps running for federal office: Most are by nature non-political, and therefore donโt make good or persistent politicians. Their views prevent them from promising farmers more subsidies, seniors more health care, or students more loans.ย And those views also discourage campaign contributions.
Third, even when constitutionalists do achieve federal office, a critical proportion of them forget or weaken their commitments amid the enticements of Washington, D.C. and the fleshpots of power.
The Founders foresaw this sort of thing. Thatโs whyย they inserted in the Constitutionโs Article V language allowingย the statesย to respond to federal abuse by amending the document.ย At the behest of 2/3 of the states, all convene together to propose constitutional amendments, which 3/4 may ratify.
This provision was designedย explicitlyย to enable the states to bypass federal politicians.
Incredibly, however, the convention method of proposing amendments has never been used. This largely explains why our governmental system is so unbalanced today.
Year after year, well-meaning people have rejected the convention approach in the vain hope that federal elections are the answer.ย In the light of Tuesdayโs results, they need to re-assess. This reassessment is now more urgent than ever, because even more than the Constitution is at stake. So also is our national solvency.
- Was Elbridge Gerry the “Federal Farmer”? - January 26, 2026
- Unpacking the Presidential Appointments Lawsuit - December 17, 2025
- Virgil and the Constitution - September 17, 2025