Congress, Butt Out! The Constitution Reserves Malpractice Reform for the States

In their zeal to adopt a federal malpractice reform bill to dictate procedures to state courts, many Republicans in Congress are doing precisely what they rightly accuse Democrats of doing: blithely disregarding the Constitution’s clear limits on federal power. Their proposals, once encapsulated in H.R. 5 and then slipped into the Senate Republican “jobs bill,” not only…

Details

Attacks on the Modern Tea Party Resemble Abuse British Tories Hurled at American Patriots

“Criminals!”
“Frenzy!”

Does this sound like the abuse that apologists for Big Government fling at the modern Tea Party?

It should. Tea Party activists have been the victims of some incredible verbal smears—especially considering that (unlike leftist demonstrators) they have been almost uniformly peaceful and law-abiding. But modern Tea Partiers can point with pride to the fact that the patriots who stood up for freedom before the American Revolution were rewarded with the same kind of mindless abuse.

In some ways, the situation in the British Empire before the American Revolution resembles that in the United States today. On the one side were the American patriots and their British Whig sympathizers, who insisted that under the British constitution colonists were entitled to certain rights and freedoms, and that the corrupt central government in London had extended its power far beyond constitutional limits.

Details

The Necessary and Proper Clause Grants no Power at all

One way apologists for the modern federal monster state attempt to justify it constitutionally is to argue that the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) is an “elastic clause” conferring vast “implied” power on Congress. Actually, as Constitution’s advocates during the ratification battles made clear, the Necessary and Proper Clause grants…

Details

The Fascinating Story of How the States Used the Constitution’s Amendment Procedure to Adopt Reform, 1789-1913

Common sense tells us that an out-of-control Congress is not going to rein in its own power. The American Founders predicted this might become the case, so they provided a way by which the state legislatures could propose and ratify corrective constitutional amendments without Congress being able to stop them. This is the “state-application-and-convention” procedure of…

Details

Want to push back against federal overreach?

Arm yourself with constitutional information Sept. 30 in Colorado! Dave Kopel and I will be offering a one-time public class on the Constitution in Colorado Springs. The program, co-sponsored by the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Independence Institute, is called “A Constitutional Guide to Fighting Federal Overreach; A program for the Grassroots.” The class will run from 2…

Details

II Submits Brief Destroying Basis for Suit against Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights

The Independence Institute, through Dave Kopel as legal counsel, has submitted anamicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief opposing the lawsuit to overturn Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The brief destroys the plaintiffs’ claim that by allowing citizens to vote on tax increases, Colorado is violating the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that all states have a “republican…

Details

Confused About an Article V Amendments Convention? New Article Provides Answers

As I predicted in this column, Congress’s continued inability to deal effectively with the debt crisis is AGAIN provoking interest in bypassing Congress with one or more corrective constitutional amendments. We could do this if the state legislatures use their constitutional power to bring about what the Constitution calls a “convention for proposing amendments.” I’m delighted to report…

Details

Reining in Congress: An Enforceable Balanced Budget Amendment

There is growing sentiment that one or more constitutional amendments may be necessary to rein in the runaway Congress.

The principal mechanism the Founders built into the Constitution for such contingencies is the procedure in Article V by which two thirds of the state legislatures force what the Constitution calls a “Convention for proposing Amendments.”    Essentially this is a meeting of state legislative representatives for the drafting of one or more amendments on subjects designated by the legislatures.

Of course, Congress and its apologists have every reason to prevent such a convention from being called, so they have widely misled people as its nature and powers.  But if corrective amendments are to be proposed, there is no alternative to such a convention. History has shown that Congress will not do it:  Repeal of Prohibition aside, Congress has not proposed a constitutional amendment to limit or define its own powers since it passed the Bill of Rights in 1789!

In other posts I have dealt with the convention bugaboos—see, e.g., here and here. They need not detain us at this point. The more important questions are:

* What amendments are appropriate? and

* How should they be drafted?

Many people have their own pet amendments they’d like to see passed, but realistically, any such proposal must meet at least four criteria. To illustrate, I’ll test versions of balanced budget amendments against each of the four:

Details

More evidence the Constitution limited federal power

In my last post I showed how pre-Revolutionary colonial pamphlets espousing the American cause tend to rebut a favorite theory of some “progressive” writers—that the Constitution granted Congress nearly complete power over all activities with interstate effects.

Surprisingly, most delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention initially favored a central government nearly that powerful. They would have subordinated the states to the level of counties in England. Naturally Alexander Hamilton—“Mr. Big Government” among the Founders—took this position. But so did many of the convention’s moderates, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph.

Under Madison’s and Randolph’s guidance, the Virginia delegation presented an initial draft for a constitution commonly known as the “Virginia Plan.” It called for a national legislature with authority “to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation.” The Virginia Plan similarly called for national courts that could hear any matter “which may involve the national peace and harmony.”

To be sure, even this language would not have granted the central government as much authority as the “progressives” claim for it today, since not all interstate effects result in state “incompetence” or damage interstate harmony. Nevertheless, it would have resulted in a very powerful central government.

The convention at first agreed, and adopted resolutions approving these parts of the Virginia Plan. As time wore on, however, the delegates thought better of it, and changed their minds. One reason was, no doubt, a recognition that the general public would never approve a strongly “national” constitution.

Details