Let's Get REALLY Serious About Restoring Constitutional Order

[Jim Delaney]

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" a ruffled Speaker Pelosi disdainfully responded to a reporter when she was asked if Obamacare's individual mandate was constitutional.

Then there was Rep. Clyburn who dismissively asserted that "there's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do."

And, not to be outdone, the especially offensive assertion by Rep. Pete Stark that "the federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country."

Like any American who reveres the Constitution and heard these odious statements, I was incensed and, frankly, sick to my stomach.

I thought I was beyond being shocked and dismayed by the Progressives' arrogance and vacuity. But, like all determined leftist ideologues, their alien agenda and blind ideology ALWAYS trump the Constitution.

That said,  in the interest of fair-and-balanced, what happened to the GOP's 2010 "Pledge to America"? Specifically, is the Pledge's requirement that "every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority" being consistently and properly honored? Does anyone know? More importantly, are GOPers empty-headedly basing their citations through the murky prism of corrosive case law vs original meaning and intent? In short, has this portion of the Pledge turned out to be yet another charade, a cynical or otherwise careless ruse perpetrated on an unwitting American public still acutely afflicted with a dangerous case of attention disorder?

What that painfully ignorant Pelosi outburst and the shameless litany of other repellent statements from Progressives in Congress underscores is this: we've strayed dangerously far afield from the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. And unless we take meaningful and determined action to restore first principles, the statists which dominate our current ruling elite in DC will surely "fundamentally transform the United States of America", and in doing so will quickly relegate our constitutional republic to the dustbin of history.

We can argue whether Obama and his Progressive cohorts are merely misguided Socialists or Social Democrats, Statists or neo-Marxists, but the acutely disturbing reality is that for many years now the Progressives have been incrementally transforming the US into an authoritarian welfare state--or much worse--meaning that both our liberties and our economic well-being are being destroyed.

So, how do we more assertively, more meaningfully, and more effectively reverse the years of unrestrained government overreach and restore the dynamism and strength of our constitutional republic? Can we rely upon our enlightened political class to reverse our tailspin into authoritarianism? Though there are some solidly conservative Constitution-first representatives in DC these days, their minority status in the DC power structure remains a nearly insuperable obstacle to real reform. So, something much more compelling, more vigorous, more high-profile, more focused, more determined is needed to get this done--and soon.

Short of open rebellion or secession--which may still be in the offing--I am hopeful there is another less tumultuous way forward. Toward that end, and like many other concerned Americans, I've been mulling at least the general shape of a solution to this problem. So, while the actual process to achieving this goal requires some further reflection and discussion, here's what I've come up with so far. Nothing profound, but it is, I hope, the beginning of a serious discussion:

1. a. An Article V Constitutional Convention (convened by the States) to repeal the 17th Amendment and to devise a joint federal-state process to reign in a runaway and dangerously politicized Supreme Court. (And with the majority of State houses currently in GOP control, chances are better than even that reason and probity vs parochial political agendas and liberal excesses would motivate the majority of participants.) Of course, a determined, well-organized and widespread grassroots effort at the State level would be required to move the states in this direction.

   b. Simultaneously, a serious national campaign by grassroots patriotic organizations to urge States to reassert their co-equality with the federal government by unilaterally nullifying any and all unconstitutional federal usurpation, whether those encroachments are well-established or more recently imposed. This would necessarily require States' nullifying manifestly arbitrary judicial rulings, overreaching federal laws and executive orders A - Z. (Justification: the key to quickly achieving genuine constitutional order is by fully re-establishing co-equality between the States and the federal government and to strictly limit the feds to Art 1 Sec 8 powers as originally conceived. Nullification can easily accomplish that goal.) Again, a herculean and determined grassroots effort would be needed to see this to fruition.

2. A "National Commission to Restore Constitutional Order" (In a real sense, a modern day Constitutional Convention.)

Comprised of 50 respected luminaries drawn from the business world, constitution advocacy organizations, jurists, political scientists, constitutional scholars and historians, all of  whom must be demonstrably independent of government influence, and, to provide clout and further credibility, one representative from each State in the union, a "Commission to Restore Constitutional Order" should be immediately convened by Congress with a year-long mandate to transparently, rigorously and comprehensively study all laws, edicts, rulings, executive orders and government structures to objectively determine which do and do not fully comport with the original meaning, intent and scope of the Constitution as clearly understood by both the Constitution's framers and ratifiers.

To achieve this level of objectivity, the Commission would be enjoined to consult ONLY the original founding documents, the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, founders' correspondence, as well as applicable dictionaries and relevant political discourses of the day in order to accurately shape their conclusions respecting the constitutionality of the various subjects before them! Of course, for the commissioners already tainted by decades of errant case law and political bias, this constraint will, no doubt, pose the greatest challenge to the efficacy of the Commission; thus, luminary appointments must be carefully vetted by Congress AND the Commission's State representatives to better ensure their single-minded commitment to this necessarily restrictive mandate. Most importantly, the People must be solidly behind such an effort.

Moreover, since the Supreme Court, its appointment process, rules of tenure and its very rulings, will also be under intense scrutiny, the Supreme Court will have absolutely NO authority or oversight in this exercise. (Notably absent from the commission's composition will be practicing attorneys-at-law whose training and and predispositions are generally more directed at simply winning legal arguments than to upholding the clear meaning of the Constitution.)

Fullest public access to these proceedings must be encouraged, and feedback from the public should be continuously elicited, reviewed, and carefully considered for incorporation into the Commission's recommendations to Congress. A complete, unexpurgated record of Commission discussions and public feedback must be fully accessible to all Americans 24/7.

The Commission, headed by a chairperson chosen by and from the Commissioners themselves, would number 100 and its period of public service would be limited to one year unless otherwise extended with the approval of a majority of the Commission's State representatives OR by a majority of both houses of Congress. Learned witnesses from all walks of life would be invited to testify before the Commission.

To eliminate the more egregious examples of federal overreach, the Commission would be urged to prioritize and to submit those highest priority items to Congress within 3 months of its convening. Where an outright rescission of any one of those high-priority items by congressional vote alone may not be constitutionally feasible, then an expedited amendment process must be implemented within 30 days of the Commission's submission of those items to Congress. (For example, when there exists general agreement among the Commissioners that the state appointment of senators should be restored, that the income tax amendment must to revised or repealed, that the Dept of Education must be phased out or summarily shut down, that the process of appointing/removing federal judges must be amended, or that a system should be established to enable the States to overrule federal judicial rulings, then Congress--or the States--must initiate an expedited amendment process within 30 days of submission of those items to Congress.) And if any items are generally regarded as especially violative of the Constitution, then States might be encouraged to simply nullify those offending items, thus effectively and more quickly eliminating their relevance in our national life and discussion.

The remainder of the list of constitutionally questionable laws, edicts, judicial rulings, orders, fiats, governmental processes and structures must be submitted to Congress for review within 9 months of the commission's convening. As said, if  laws/rulings/orders are particularly egregious and outside the scope of legislative authority to eliminate same, States would be encouraged to simply assert their 10th Amendmenet nullification authority thus rendering offending items null and void and of no force in their respective States. With this latitude and leverage, Congress and the Commissioners might well be more motivated to intelligently, honestly, and efficiently deal with these items without needless delay, the point being that the speed of this restoration process must be accomplished deliberately, not glacially. We've waited long enough.

Obviously, the overriding objective of this year-long constitutional restoration exercise would be to simplify constitutional laws, rules and regulations and to eliminate those which are clearly unconstitutional; to restore "constitutional supremacy" vs "judicial supremacy; to reduce  the size, scope, cost and inefficiency of the federal government; to restore a clearly defined separation of powers within the federal government in keeping with original design; and to restore co-equality of the States with the federal government. Obvious too is the fact that the strong support of Congress would be essential to getingt the ball rolling. Herculean grassroots lobbying would be essential.

Clearly, the Article V Constitutional Convention may well be the least onerous, but such a convention would likely run the risk of inviting corrupting ideological excesses. This is why I'm leaning toward a highly transparent joint  Congressional-State convention approach with a clearly defined and clearly focused constitutional mandate, an Art V Convention hybrid of sorts, a Second Constitutional Convention if you will. And though many progressive-dominated states may threaten to obstruct the process by withholding their participation, the specter of the Commission's acting without their input might well incentivize their participation. But with or without those delegates, the Commission's work must proceed unencumbered and with all deliberate speed.

Too aggressive? Too far-reaching? Do-able? Overwhelming? Too onerous? Too bureaucratic? Or, in the minds of the We the People and its representatives in DC and the various state capitals, is the Constitution already an irrelevant relic worthy or nothing more than our benign neglect? (Note: as I see it, a resounding Republican sweep November '12 AND the real possibility that the "super congressional committee" might actually accomplish something creditable and bi-partisan might well present our last great opportunity to restore first principles. But, of course, to do so we must ensure the unwavering commitment of the GOP elite. A tall order, for sure.)

Obviously, this is but a rough outline, I know, and much massaging, sting andreamlining, and clarifying are clearly needed. But, I think we can all agree that we really do need to get deadly serious about drastically changing course and restoring first principles.  I am absolutely convinced that something big must be done soon to get back on track.

Finally, this: if this peaceful return to constitutional order proves to be but an unachievable pipe dream, then all bets are off and less attractive and more...assertive and unsettling...alternative remedies may well be unavoidable. If the current union proves to be unwilling to commit itself to first principles, then it is a certainty that the union's dissolution is inescapable.

To my way of thinking, there is absolutely nothing redeeming about "unity at any price". Absent the congealing foundations of liberty and republicanism, a union is but a habitat for fools and slaves. Time is running out.


"Where [the Constitution] thrives, everything thrives." Dr. Larry Arnn, President, Hillsdale College, 2011.

"The Constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other enlarged, that should be adopted which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution." Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison, Federalist #45, 1788.

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Don't get me wrong Jim, what you proposed is completely legitimate and intellectually responsible . . . . AND desirable. If there were only us like minded souls to deal with I think your ideas could happen tomorrow. The reality is not only are there agitated people on the ideological other side of each and every one of your highlighted issues, there are even conservatives who would hoodwink your ideas for their own gain.

When you stop and think about it . . . . . we have a HUGE job to do and it's bigger than any one person.

This internet thing is BIG. The dynamic of communicating is in the process of change and we're not at the end product of that change yet. We're still learning how to use the internet and the gadgets that go along with it.

When the TEA PARTY can organize a demonstration of millions in a matter of months and the (occupy demonstrations) can coalesce in a matter of weeks, one can see that the near future in politics will change too.

The leader I mentioned earlier will have full command of all these changes and may well be a leader in the communication fleld . . . . might not have any experience in politics at all just communication.

These are exciting times. The pace of change is lightning fast. Only those willing to keep abreast of the changing landscape of communication will have a chance to make a contribution.

We're here and we're a part of it.

[Jim Delaney]

Philip,

I guess you could easily surmise from my post that I too am stumped. But, perhaps the likes of Pres. Arnn of Hillsdale might be amenable to unilaterally convening a blue-ribbon "Restoring First Principles" study group, whose makeup would be left to him and others of his respected station, which could present its findings to the public-at-large as well as to congressional and state legislative leaders as well for their review and, hopefully, deliberate action. But, how to get such a  high profile ball rolling? Am so weary of just whining, wishfully thinking, and, in the absence of a peaceful resolution, warning the choir about the worst possible scenarios like secession and rebellion if first principles aren't quickly restored. I still heavily lean toward unilateral State nullification. But, alas, there is no spine there either. What to do?

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

I'm with you in spriit Jim it's which process is going to get us back on the original constitutional track that has me stumped.

Doing what we're doing now, a long slow death defying inefficient defensive Republican legislative rewrite against  the progressive onslaught has netted us ZERO. We've got no leaders. Boehner?? NOPE! Mitch McConnell?? NOPE!! Any of the current list of Republican candidates really stand out??? NOPE!

I'm almost 100% convinced it will take a special person/leader to lead the charge against the progressives. THAT leader ain't here yet. NONE of the current candidates is THAT leader. That person will become VERY obvious and will stand out from all others. That leader will be easy to recognize . . . . . that leader will be the one being trampled and trudgeoned by the media and the democrat machine.

There IS a leader being trampled and maligned by the media AND who is being targeted BIG TIME by the democrat machine. The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, is changing the political landscape in Wisconsin for the better in a very short time but you'd never know it listening to the local media. He has been boiled in oil by the local media and at this very moment there is a democrat progressive recall attempt being organized. He will not be denied however and is sure of himself and what his goals are.

[Jim Delaney]

Would it be wiser to limit the excercise to a well-publicized national study and recommendation process? Then, an informed and engaged public could determine the next step(s).

Frankly, my preferred approach is 1.b. alone--the States asserting their 10th Amendment authority. That would most certainly get us back on the right track.  The corrupting influence of progressives and an overweaning fed would be quickly and efficiently circumvented.

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

"here's what I've come up with so far. Nothing profound, but it is, I hope, the beginning of a serious discussion:"

and then you go on to talk about calling for a constituitonal convention.

1. a. An Article V Constitutional Convention (convened by the States) to repeal the 17th Amendment and to devise a joint federal-state process to reign in a runaway and dangerously politicized Supreme Court. (And with the majority of State houses currently in GOP control, chances are better than even that reason and probity vs parochial political agendas and liberal excesses would motivate the majority of participants.) Of course, a determined, well-organized and widespread grassroots effort at the State level would be required to move the states in this direction.

The democrats would LOVE to call a constitutional convention whereby they would take total control of all discusion, by force if they felt it necessary, and then they would proceed to abolish the entire constitution as it is now written and rewrite a new one in their image.

THIS would scare me to death!

[Katy]

If you could get all the SO CALLED  CHRISTIANS in AMERICA  to unite , in GODS NAME and PRAY ,  we could see this land healed.     You have churches full of people  with a cross around their neck who condone abortion,  homosexual PREACHERS.    The youth are more concerned with their cell phone, than hearing the WORD.   They do not even know the plan of salvation!   Most of our modern churches are hip hop video .   Preprinted sunday school books and the BIBLE is irrevelant.    The mission is to entertain the church, and have another outing.   THE COUNTRY CLUB.      MANY vote democratic just becase they were raised to vote that way.   as GOD said,, MY PEOPLE PERISH FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.