Article V Convention: Is It A Good Idea?

As citizens struggle to figure out how to rein in a runaway federal government, some Constitutional scholars are taking a closer look at the pros and cons of an Article V Convention as a way to pass amendments that will help limit the size of government:

In August, Missouri became the latest state to rebel against the new national health care law when 71 percent of voters supported a ballot initiative rejecting the legislation's requirement that individuals purchase government-approved insurance. Several other states will consider similar measures on the ballot this November.

However satisfying this backlash against ObamaCare may be to opponents of the law, these state-based efforts could all be for naught if the U.S. Supreme Court sides with Congress and rules that the legislation's individual mandate is constitutional.

Such a decision would have far-reaching consequences, giving broad new power to the federal government over individuals and states. It would mean that the interstate Commerce Clause would have been interpreted so broadly as to allow the federal government to regulate the activities of people who choose not to engage in commerce, and within a health insurance market where businesses aren't even allowed to sell their products across state lines. It would represent the culmination of decades in erosion of the concept of the separation of powers between federal and state governments, and the boldest example of congressional over-reach in the age of Obama.

In that scenario, short of repeal, the only remaining way to fight the law would be to amend the Constitution. Given how polarized the modern U.S. Senate is, it's highly unlikely that a proposed amendment would garner the necessary 67 votes needed to amend the Constitution in the traditional manner. Yet the Founding Fathers left the states one last check on federal power.

Under Article V of the Constitution, "Congress… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which… shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States."

The Constitution has never been amended through a convention of the states, and this route remains controversial, with many conservatives fearing that the meeting would turn into a circus in the modern media age, and open the door to a wholesale rewriting of the nation's founding document. Yet a new body of research suggests that these fears are unwarranted, and that there are enough checks built into the system to prevent what scholars refer to as a "runaway convention." With state legislators and grassroots activists searching for ways to limit the abuses of Congress, the possibility has begun to generate more chatter.

The article is lengthy but well worth reading as it closely examines the pros and cons of executing this Constitutional option.

Hat tip: The Volokh Conspiracy

Taking the Pledge

Now this is a novel idea, a Constitution pledge for presidential candidates. The idea of a potential president having to submit a handwritten copy of the Constitution at their inauguration seems to me to be a great idea and one worth considering.

In my experience, I've always retained things better that I have written down. Maybe if we made our leaders do the same with the Constitution they would be more likely to adhere to it more often.

Monks Under Fire

As if we need any more examples of the government trampling on individual liberty, here's a real winner: monks that are facing jail time and fines for the high crime of building caskets. Yep, you read that correctly. Read the whole story and be outraged.

Digging My Grave

This has to be one of the most clever anti-Obamacare ads I have seen yet:



Source

Goodbye, Freedom

If government healthcare reform passes, then we can kiss our freedoms goodbye according to Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Last week the House of Representatives voted on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms.

Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Flu Vaccine Shortages and Government Healthcare

A new ad will begin to run nationally today that makes the case that the government has no business getting any further into running healthcare given how they've handled the H1N1 flu vaccine shortage (as well as sending vaccine to Gitmo detainees before American citizens) (hat tip: Michael Goldfarb):



It's a great ad and makes a very salient point. For all the talk about how widespread the H1N1 pandemic was supposed to be, the government sure seems to have been caught woefully unprepared in developing sufficient supplies of the vaccine. The ad reinforces what we already know: everything government does is going to be far less efficient and far more costly than they say it will be.

Where's That Stimulus Money Going?

I was driving through West Virginia and Kentucky last weekend and saw a number of signs advertising that some particular road improvement project was being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act otherwise known as the "stimulus plan" or by its more derisive name Porkulus.

About half the projects I saw on the road appeared to have already been completed. The other half were in various states of progress.

But I couldn't help wonder about the money spent on the signs. Turns out I'm not the only one. Frankly, I can't see why the money was spent on the signs. But then again, this is the federal government and, as usual, nothing they do makes sense.

Perhaps the better thing to have done was to forgo buying the signs and spend more money fixing the roads.

I'm just saying.....

Nanny State To Regulate Bloggers

According to the Associated Press, the Federal Trade Commission is targeting thousand of bloggers (like myself) who dare to post reviews on the Internet:

Savvy consumers often go online for independent consumer reviews of products and services, scouring through comments from everyday Joes and Janes to help them find a gem or shun a lemon.

What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.

The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

Memo to the FTC: no one is lining up to offer me laptops, free trips, gift cards, or anything else of value. I don't know who these people are that are getting such perks.

Just so it's clear to everyone, I do get free stuff. I get books, DVDs, and CDs from time to time. Because I write for Blogcritics, I have access to a lot of free stuff. I've had an opportunity to review a lot of items over the past few years. I've had a chance to interview many authors. But I haven't made much (if any money) in the process.

Normally, if there is an item I am reviewing for Blogcritics (or any other blog, for that matter), I get an advance copy of a particular item. It may be a DVD screener for an upcoming show, a CD before its release, or an advance copy of a book. It's the exact same stuff that other media outlets such as newspapers and magazines receive to publish the same types of reviews. I don't make any money unless someone clicks through a link in my review to a site selling the item or they happen to click on one of the advertisers in the sidebar and buy stuff.

To go one step further, the amount of money I make on such sales is miniscule. I have made very little money blogging and certainly don't have any illusions about getting rich doing it.

I review items because I enjoy it and not because there is any financial incentive.

It seems to me that the government is going to have an extremely hard time enforcing these rules. There may be abuses such as those that this article sites but those cases are isolated at best.

I'm inclined to concur with Ed Morrissey that perhaps this whole kerfuffle is evidence that we can afford to disband the FTC.

The Problem and The Solution

The looming financial crisis has been all over the headlines this week and presidential politics has inevitably been tied to it. But much of the coverage is confusing and the myriad of problems that have led to the current crisis can be confusing. Mark Alexander's essay today on the crisis is a good primer on how we got to where we are and what some of the options that are available.

Equally worth consideration is this column from Daniel Henniger in the Wall Street Journal. He argues that what we need is a return to old-time values.

Yes, the need is great. But the worst thing that government could do is rush to fix the problem. I'd rather see lawmakers take their time and get the solution right. Otherwise it could turn out to be like many government "solutions" which become bigger problems that the original problems they are designed to fix.