Renewed Interest In A Forgotten Amendment

One of the encouraging things to have come out of the Obama Administration so far has to be the trend among states suddenly to remember their rights under the 10th Amendment. For those that have forgotten, the 10th Amendment reads as follows:

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.

Short, sweet and to the point! That which the Constitution does not expressly give to the Federal government is reserved for the states and for the people. It is a simple enough precept but one that has been ignored by the state and federal governments for decades. For the last 60-80 years the states have been ceding more and more of their Constitutional rights to the federal government....mostly for expedience sake - but there have been times where the Federal Government has wrested the rights away from the states.

As many as 30 states have gone on the record in their Legislative sessions this year reclaiming their 10th Amendment rights. One wonders why the renewed interest in this inconvenient Amendment all of a sudden....

On February 26, the South Carolina House adopted and sent to the Senate a bill to "affirm the rights of all states including South Carolina based on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments, etc."

In part it reads, "Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; ..."

This excerpt is according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Why are more than 30 states rushing to slam through this reaffirmation of their own constitutions and restating what already exists in the U.S. Constitution? The Washington Dragon is breathing down states' necks — states are being forced to accept so-called "stimulus" monies which threatens to tighten Washington's power and control over the states.

Utah, while not on this list, has taken a look at the strings attached to certain stimulus monies and said "Thanks but no thanks...."

Utah lawmakers are turning their backs -- at least for now -- on more than $61 million in federal stimulus money targeted at helping the state's surging unemployed ranks.

To snag the money, the Legislature would have had to change state law, extending benefits to about 4,200 jobless Utahns -- part-time workers, those who quit jobs to accompany a spouse who is changing employment, or others -- who don't qualify now.

But Utah legislators, pinched for time in the 2009 session, balked at changing the law, fearing that employers, already grappling with a poor economy, would get hit with more unemployment taxes to cover the costs.

"Any time you have to run legislation and change your state policy and code for one-time money, that doesn't make a lot of sense," said Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse. Lawmakers have to either kill the program when the money is gone or find a way to fund a benefit "you don't want in the first place."

Many of the bills that are going through the current Congress are partly or fully unconstitutional. Whether it is granting a States rights to a non-state (representation in Congress to Washington DC) or mandating that states change their laws in order to accept these stimulus funds, Congress is trying to bypass the Constitution in order to push through wholesale changes to the country. My thought is if these are such great ideas, let's put them to the people individually - so that we may argue the pros and cons in a direct fashion. Hiding them in omnibus bills and "must pass" stimulus legislation when they are not discussed makes people think that maybe these bills are not as beneficial as their supporters say they are.

Let's shine the light of day on these bills so that the merits of each idea can be discussed on it's own. Or are you afraid that they people will not accept the "Change" that you are proposing?

Change That Won't Happen

One of the problems that I have with political discourse today is that too much of the discourse (on both sides to be fair) is not based on anything more than feelings. Little (if any) thought is put to many issues - just how it makes them feel...the latest issue is H.J.Res 5.

1/6/2009--Introduced.

Constitutional Amendment - Repeals the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President).

This bill has Republicans across the country "feeling". I have had no less than a dozen variations of this story hit my mail box in the last two days.

As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.

The column admits that former Presidents of both parties have taken issue with the 22nd Amendment, but with the title "Hail King Obama" you know that this column is designed ONLY to elicit emotion not promote discussion. The hyperventilating that comes with the attached story is a sight to behold.

Let's take a look at the process of amending the Constitution, not from an emotional level but from a more clinical level. First off, the Constitutionally prescribed process for amending the Constitution.

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

This process, as you can tell, is quite cumbersome. Now how easy do you think it will be to get 327 members of THIS current Congress to agree on ANYTHING, much less this type of an amendment to the Constitution. How easy do you think it would be to get 75 Senators to agree? If by some wild stretch of the imagination it miraculously passed the House and the Senate this year, how quickly do you think you can get 38 state legislatures to not only get it on their legislative schedules but get it past THEIR respective Houses and Senates by the same 3/4's majority in time to have it go into effect before President Obama leaves office?

To give you a hint about just how long the odds are, let's take a look at the last amendment that was ratified. The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution provided that no pay raise that Congress voted on would apply to Congress until the FOLLOWING session. Which means that the pay raise that you just voted for yourself takes effect AFTER the next election and if you lose..... The 27th Amendment was first proposed in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 - 202 years later!

Another modern amendment to look at is the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 by Rep. Daniel Anthony and Sen. Charles Curtis - both Kansas Republicans! The ERA was introduced in every session from 1946 to 1970 and it never garnered enough votes to even get out to the states.

Oh sure there was one instance where an amendment was proposed and ratified in less than one year, but it was the exception to the rule. The political environment in 1933 was not nearly as divided or as politically charged as it is today.

As things stand today it would take 8 Republican Senators and 9 Republican state houses flipping in order to ratify the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. Does anyone think that there is any chance, in this political climate, that this could possibly happen? Or is it just some unknown Representative out of New York - one of 29 - grandstanding in order to get a brief hit of warmth and light off of a spotlight that belongs to the next President of the United States?