Pseudolus wrote:...the current amendments I'd like to debate for inclusion in the Liberty List are..
Pseudolus, that’s quite a list! Speaking for myself, I don’t have the time to engage in discussion of other amendment proposals and, more importantly, I am not knowledgeable enough to take a firm position on most of them one way or the other.
Not to discourage you, but this probably isn’t the best forum for engaging in discussion on a wide ranging list of possible amendments. There are other organizations with a broader mission relative to an
Article V convention and you may find those to be more conducive to such a debate. Here are two that I’m aware of:
Friends of the Article V Convention also on
Facebook.
Convention USA also on
Facebook.
That’s my short answer. Below is an elaboration of my views which probably nobody will read, but I’ll put them on the record anyway. That allows me to reference it in response to any future questions. (Some of my postings are like reusable code objects that I can evoke when someone asks the question again.)
I advocate the following two constitutional amendments:
1)
Article the first as originally proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789
2) Repeal of the 17th Amendment
The effect of both of these proposals is to return to the
original intent of the Founders with respect to representation in Congress. Thirty-Thousand.org (TTO) is exclusively dedicated to the first proposal. Though I support repeal of the 17th Amendment, that is not explicitly a part of TTO’s mission.
I should explain why I do not actively support other amendment proposals. First, I do not want to distract from TTO’s mission of expanding awareness of the benefits of
representational enlargement. The problem with promoting a list of amendments is that many people will, in my opinion, view them as a bundle and reject them
en masse if they don’t like one or two of them. For example, let’s say your organization (hypothetically) focused on the repeal of the 17th and 16th amendments. Because there are people who are committed to the former but not the latter (or vice versa), you will not gain as much support as you would by focusing exclusively on either objective. That reality also undermined, IMO, Sabato's book "
A More Perfect Constitution" (which advocated 23 different amendments).
Before I get to my fundamental rationale for not actively supporting other amendments, let's identify the main reason our Congress does
not put forth any new amendments:
They are no longer answerable to the people. After all,
why not put forth many of the amendments proposed by you, Saboto and others? Their ratification would not occur until ¾ of the states’ legislatures affirmed them anyway, and that is a very long journey for an amendment! So, as a hypothetical, imagine that the current Congress proposed an amendment which requires the distribution of goods & services in the U.S. to be “determined and directed by the state national economic plan” according to the principle that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” (having taken their inspiration from Articles 11 & 12 of the now defunct Soviet Constitution). As disturbing as their proposal would be, I would not be overly alarmed simply because no more than two or three states would even consider affirming such an amendment. As far as I’m concerned, Congress should put forth virtually all proposals that have widespread support and let the states’ legislatures exercise their authority as provided by Article V.
Of course, Congress (as it is currently comprised) will
not propose any amendments for the states’ ratification because they realize that the only ones that would be affirmed are those which reduce the power and majesty of our imperial Congress. Otherwise, why not let ¾ of the states decide if the 17th amendment should be repealed, or whatever? Put it all out there for the states to decide. Congress is terrified at the prospect of empowering the states to that extent, which is why we will need an Article V convention.
That leads to my belief in the fundamental essentiality of
representational enlargement. We now have a Congress that is largely
of the Special Interests, by the Special Interests, and for the Special Interests. (As explained in Taking Back Our Republic, this is a direct result of oversized congressional districts.) It is clear that, had we a “People’s House”, it would approve many amendment proposals for the states to consider. Representational enlargement will enable us to realize that vision by replacing
435 politician-oligarchs with several thousand
citizen representatives. I know many people will take issue with my conclusion, but that is why representational enlargement is the
gateway solution. That is, if we were able to ratify only a single new amendment, that amendment should require representational enlargement. That would enable the citizenry to regain control of the U.S. House and replace an obstructionist Congress with one willing to allow the states’ legislatures to consider additional amendments to the Constitution.