Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, has proposed a bunch of new amendments to the Constitution. I found a list of them here. There are some good ideas. However, most of his proposed amendments seek to return power to the states. The states lost their say at the national level when the 17th Amendment was ratified, making Senator an elective office by the people of the state rather than an appointed position by the state assembly and/or governor. As I have pointed out in a previous post, 26 states opposed Obamacare. If those states could have simply ordered their senators to vote against - which is what would have happened before the 17th Amendment - the law would not have been passed. Senators went from protecting the authority of the states they represented to accumulating power in the governmental body where they served. This is one of the reasons money and power have migrated from the states and to Washington DC.
It would be far more efficient to just repeal the 17th Amendment. Sadly, this is an abstruse argument that can easily be flipped as taking voting rights away from the people. "What do you mean I no longer get to elect my senators?!" For that reason, this simple solution would be a much harder sell. It was comparatively easy to repeal Prohibition (18th Amendment) because everyone needed a drink. With that sadly being the case, let's look at the proposals.
Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
But for an expansive definition of the commerce clause, this would already be the case. The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer who had grown a crop entirely for his personal use was taking part in interstate commerce and thus subject to federal law. Ergo, everything becomes a facet of interstate commerce and under the purview of Congress.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
That would be nice but I suspect that Congress would use this as an excuse to raise taxes rather than cut spending. "Hey, you people ratified the amendment that requires us to balance the budget. It's your fault that we must raise your taxes." I like what Colorado did. They limited the growth of state spending to inflation and population growth. Do that at the federal level and we would be running surpluses in no time.
Prohibit administrative agencies — and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them — from creating federal law.
That this should even have to be proposed tells just how far we have drifted. The Constitution grants legislative power solely to Congress. Every single law, regulation, expenditure, et al. must be passed on the floor of the House and Senate. They can no more transfer this power to non-elective agencies than the president can give his veto to Mickey Mouse. Yet they have. So be it, we will have to try an amendment.
Prohibit administrative agencies — and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them — from preempting state law.
This looks like it should just be a clause under that last one. If Congress can't export its legislative features to unelected bureaucrats, it should be able to imbue them with judicial powers either. Let's not blur the lines between judges and bureaucrats.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
I'm ambivalent on this one. I'm not keen on the Supreme Court lacking a check or balance. In theory, a misbehaving judge can be impeached by Congress but that is virtually impossible. Congress likes transferring risky decisions to non-elective parts of government - thus those last two proposals - and the court is the ultimate non-elective part. Each party seeks to control the court and have its agenda imposed on the country by means of unredressable rulings. This provides a more realistic means of checking the Supreme Court. However, I suspect there are some unforeseen problems hidden in this.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
I don't see how this would fly. First, it would have to apply to all federal courts or this would mostly transfer final decisions to the various Federal Appeals Courts. How far down would this super-majority requirement go? Besides, if the two-thirds override discussed in the last proposal came to pass, there is redress rather than hobbling the court system.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
How do we do that? The Constitution already limits the federal government to certain delegated powers. Check out the 10th Amendment. It is already unconstitutional and yet it is done. Do we make it double-dog dare unconstitutional? Wouldn't it be best to just enforce the laws (amendments) already on the books than enact new ones that duplicate the old ones?
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
This one is full of mischief. In a litigious society such as ours, this is an invitation to civil war fought in federal courts. The very federal courts that have been hamstrung by some of the above proposals.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
The likelihood of this actually being exercised is so low that it is probably a good idea. The populace would have to be hugely indignant for the states to achieve this. It is short of an amendment (3/4ths required) and echoes the presidential veto. If this were to be successfully used, it would be an indication that the federal government had become tyrannical and this might be a means of preventing civil war or secession.
That a governor of one of the largest states thinks this is necessary is a bad sign for the republic. Too much of this tries to force the federal government back within the constraints that are already in place in the Constitution. Those constraints have failed. Reiterating them is unlikely to succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment