The Failure of the Constitutional Amendment Process to Protect Federalism: A Diagnosis and Treatment Plan

The national convention method for proposing and ratifying amendments has never been used to amend the Constitution. Its reliance on two-thirds of state legislatures to apply for a national convention to propose a constitutional amendment has led to an almost universal fear of a runaway convention that has prevented this amendment method from functioning. This concern is pervasive despite the requirement that any convention approved amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions. In this installment of the Liberty Forum, Michael Rappaport engages these considerations and urges a rehabilitation of the national convention model, a reform that might be necessary given the increasing consolidation of power in the federal government.

The historical trajectory of the United States Constitution has moved uniformly towards nationalism.  Since the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enacted, the constitutional amendments that have been passed have generally expanded national power or restricted state power.  Virtually no constitutional provisions have been added that move in the direction of limiting the national government or invigorating federalism.

For many observers, these developments are best understood as resulting from changes in societal circumstances and values that support a nationalist approach.  According to this view, as the country becomes more economically and culturally interconnected, it makes sense both to have greater national regulation to address externalities and to treat the nation more as a single entity that should be governed by uniform standards.

While this explanation fits certain nationalistic political views perfectly, it is problematic.  Although some historical forces support greater national power, other forces suggest stricter limits on such power.  For example, congressional spending and debt appear to have grown out of control in recent decades.  Members of Congress may also have become caught in a culture of corruption.  As a result, the public has exhibited strong support for several constitutional amendments intended to address these concerns, such as amendments involving balanced budgets, a line item veto, and congressional term limits, but none of these amendments have been enacted.  Although some might understand these failures as simply reflecting the difficulty of the amendment process, there is another significant possibility: the constitutional amendment process is biased in favor of changes that expand national power and against changes that limit such power.

The Constitution was not designed to exhibit this bias.  Instead, the Framers believed that amendments should be forthcoming to correct whatever deficiencies the Constitution developed.  They therefore sought to prevent any one entity from being in a position to block constitutional amendments.  Referring to the danger that the Congress would obstruct amendments that constrained its powers, George Mason stated at the Philadelphia Convention that “[i]t would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature [to pass amendments], because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”  As a result of these views, the Constitution authorizes two basic methods designed to allow amendments that either expand or constrain national powers.  Under the congressional proposal method, two thirds of each house of Congress can propose a constitutional amendment.  Under the national convention method, the state legislatures can apply for a national convention that then decides whether to propose a constitutional amendment.  The amendments proposed under either of these two methods are then subject to ratification by the state legislatures or state conventions, as Congress determines.

These amendment methods were designed to operate together to ensure that no one entity could prevent the enactment of an amendment.  Thus, if Congress seeks an amendment that the state legislatures oppose, Congress can propose the amendment and task state conventions with the ratification decision.  Similarly, if the state legislatures seek an amendment that Congress opposes, the state legislatures can apply for a national convention that could propose the amendment, which would then be subject to ratification either by the states legislatures or state conventions.

Unfortunately, the national convention method, which allows the nation to bypass Congress, does not work.  Not only has it never been used to enact an amendment, but no convention has ever been called.  Moreover, given the public support for the amendments listed above, it is hard to attribute this lack of use to a lack of political interest in enacting amendments that Congress opposes.  Instead, problems with the functioning of this amendment method  prevent it from enacting amendments.

The failure of the convention method means that the Constitution largely operates as if it contained only the congressional proposal method for enacting amendments and therefore that no amendment that Congress does not support can be enacted.  This congressional and nationalistic bias in the amendment process has distorted our constitutional history by preventing amendments that check Congress and, unless corrected, promises to do the same to our constitutional future.

In the remainder of this essay, I will briefly explore this constitutional defect, explain why it occurs, offer a reform that would correct the defect, and even identify a realistic method for enacting that reform.

The Fear of a Runaway Convention

Why does the national convention method not work?  Under that method, two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention that can propose amendments, which are then subject to ratification by three-quarters of the states.  Although there are several reasons why the national convention method does not function, the most important is the fear of a runaway convention.

To understand why the fear of a runaway convention cripples this amendment method, imagine that you are a state legislator who is deciding whether to vote for a convention.  You believe that some limits are needed on the incurring of federal debt, such as a balanced budget amendment.  If you could be sure that the convention would restrict itself to this issue and decide whether to formally propose a balanced budget amendment, you would vote to apply for a convention.

But you cannot be sure that the convention would restrict itself to this issue.  The convention might end up proposing constitutional amendments on other unrelated issues – amendments that you strongly dislike.  For example, the convention could propose an amendment that would either constitutionally protect or prohibit same sex marriage. Moreover, this amendment might then conceivably be ratified by the states.  Given this risk of a runaway convention, you might decide that it is better to forego the convention than to risk enacting an amendment you strongly dislike.

The term “runaway convention” has various meanings.  In this essay, I use it to mean a convention that departs from the subject on which the state legislatures sought to have a convention.  Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Constitution allows state legislatures to apply for a convention limited to proposing an amendment on a single subject.  Some scholars argue that the Constitution permits state legislatures to choose whether to apply for either a limited convention or for an unlimited convention that may propose amendments on any subject.  Other scholars argue that the Constitution permits state legislatures to apply only for an unlimited convention.  But no matter which side of the issue the state legislatures embrace, there is still a significant risk of a runaway convention.  If the state legislatures believe they can only apply for an unlimited convention, then the resulting unlimited convention will have authority to propose amendments on any subject.  If the state legislatures believe that they can apply for a limited convention, then they can attempt to restrict the convention to considering only a specific subject.  But that does not mean that the Congress, the convention, the states, or the courts will agree with them.  For example, even if the state legislatures believe they have the right to apply for a limited convention and Congress calls such a convention, the convention might disagree and propose amendments on other subjects.

A runaway convention is not merely a theoretical possibility, but is a realistic fear, as the runaway Philadelphia Convention of 1787 illustrates.  An amendment not sought by the state legislatures might become popular at the convention for a variety of reasons, including because an issue suddenly becomes prominent or some of the delegates choose to promote another amendment. It is true that this amendment would still need to be ratified by the states, but that might occur even though the state legislatures did not intend to ratify a different amendment when they applied for the convention. A proposal can take on a life of its own and this momentum can persuade legislators to vote for it, even though they did not initially expect to support it when they applied for the convention. More importantly, Congress might decide that the ratification decision should be made by state conventions rather than state legislatures.

A runaway convention would be extremely undesirable from the perspective of the state legislator who seeks an amendment on a specific matter.  First, it would propose an amendment that the state legislator might strongly dislike.  That would then require the state legislator and others to engage in a potential 50 state fight to prevent the amendment from being enacted.  Second, if the amendment was ratified, then that strongly disliked provision would appear to become part of the Constitution.

Finally, ratification of the amendment might also create a constitutional crisis.  Assume that the state legislatures seek a limited convention and that limited conventions are constitutional.  Then, would this new constitutional provision – which was ratified by three quarters of the states but was enacted through an illegal mechanism – be constitutional?  This issue might be decided by the Supreme Court, but it would be problematic however it was resolved.  If the amendment were found valid, then many of its opponents would believe that part of the Constitution was illegal, because the limits on the convention had been abridged.  If the amendment were found invalid, then many of its supporters would argue that part of the Constitution had been nullified, because the courts had improperly second-guessed the decisions of the convention and of three-quarters of the states.  In either case, there would be a significant dispute about the content of the nation’s fundamental law.  One can only imagine the conflict if the dispute involved a hotly contested issue, such as an amendment outlawing or protecting same-sex marriage.

Given the serious problems that might arise from a runaway convention and the significant possibility that such a convention could occur, it is not surprising that state legislators are unwilling to vote in the requisite numbers for a convention.  Individual legislators are likely to believe that relatively few amendments make sense.  Even fewer amendments are likely to have the support of two thirds of the state legislatures in the county.  But those few that do have the requisite degree of support have unfortunately been unable to overcome the fear of a runaway convention.

It is the fear of a runaway convention that appears to explain the failure of the balanced budget amendment to secure the necessary 34 states needed for a convention.  In the 1980s, the amendment appeared to have secured 32 of the 34 state applications needed for a convention.  Yet, it has failed to acquire the additional two states, even though there has continued to be strong concerns about federal debt over the last several decades.  It seems likely that the state legislators who voted for a convention for the balanced budget amendment were expressing their support for the amendment, but would have preferred Congress to pass it.  Supporters of the amendment are just not willing to incur the risks from a convention.

The State Drafting Reform

While the national convention method does not work, there is a way to reform this amendment method so that it does function.  In this section, I describe a reform – what I call the state drafting reform – that satisfies three requirements that I believe are essential for revising the national convention method.  First, the reform must, of course, avoid the problems of a runaway convention that afflict the existing national convention approach.  Second, the reform must establish an amendment method that has two of the key characteristics of the Constitution’s existing amendment methods: it must use strict supermajority rules for both proposing and ratifying amendments and must employ different entities to propose and to ratify amendments.  These characteristics promote high quality amendments that have consensus support from the electorate.  Finally, the reform must be attractive to state legislators and therefore potentially likely to be adopted.  My concern here is not merely to recommend a desirable reform, but one that might be adopted in the manner I describe in the next section.  For this to happen, state legislators must find it desirable.

The state drafting reform would satisfy each of these requirements.  Under this reform, the state legislatures would draft the amendment themselves rather than have a convention draft it.  In describing the state drafting reform, it easiest to begin with a simple version and then to introduce three modifications that would improve its operation.  Under the simple version of the reform, each state legislature would have the power to offer a specific amendment.  Once two-thirds of the state legislatures approve an identically worded amendment, that amendment would be formally proposed.  This would trigger the ratification stage, which would require, as it does now, three-quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.  This arrangement would prevent a runaway convention, as there is no convention and a formal proposal must employ the specific language approved by the state legislatures.

This simple version of the reform has three problems that should be addressed.  First, the simple version does not provide the states with a sufficient opportunity for debate and coordination.  Under the simplified procedure, each state legislature would decide on its own what amendment to pass.  The states would not have an opportunity to debate one another as to whether an amendment makes sense in general and, if so, what particular version of the amendment should be adopted.  Under the simple version, the states would also not be able to coordinate on which amendment to pass.  One state might choose one version, while a second might choose a different version.

To address this problem, the states should hold a convention, but do so in a way that avoids the pitfalls of the existing convention method.  The Constitution ought to authorize a convention of the states that is both voluntary and advisory.  A group of states could arrange a convention whenever they deemed it desirable, but no state would be required to attend.  The convention would not have any binding powers.  Instead, it would allow the states to debate the merits of different proposals.  It would also allow them to assess the popularity of different proposals and to compromise on a single amendment to be considered by each state legislature.  This type of convention would, of course, avoid the runaway convention problem.  The advisory convention would possess no power to propose an amendment.  Proposed amendments would result only from the approvals of the state legislatures.

The second problem with the simple version of the state drafting approach involves the degree of power that it confers on the small states.  Under the simple version, there are essentially two limits on a constitutional amendment: it must be proposed by two-thirds of the states and then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the statesWhile the three-quarters supermajority rule in particular is very strict from the perspective of the number of states, it actually appears quite lenient when one considers it from the perspective of the number of citizens who are represented.  It turns out that if the smallest three-quarters of the states were to support a constitutional amendment, those votes would only represent approximately thirty-nine percent of the population of the United States.

This is a serious matter if one believes, as I do, that supermajority requirements for constitutional amendments promote high-quality constitutional provisions.  The most obvious solution would be to change from an equal weighting of each state’s votes to one based on each state’s population.  Each state would then have a vote equal to the number of representatives it has in the House of Representatives.

But this proposal is unlikely to be supported by the small states, as it would reduce much of their voting strength.  What is needed is a compromise between the small and large states.  Instead of allocating votes to each state based on its population, one could allocate votes based on the number of electoral votes a state has. Because electoral votes are the sum of the number of representatives and senators for each state, they represent a compromise between representation based on population and representation based on state equality.  A large state like California would be entitled to fifty-five votes, based on fifty-three representatives and two senators, while a small state like North Dakota would be entitled to three votes, based on one representative and two senators.

One might object that the small states might deem this compromise unfair. Going from a voting rule in which California and North Dakota receive equal votes to one in which they receive fifty-five and three respectively might not seem like an equitable compromise, even though North Dakota gets more votes than its population warrants.  Two responses can be made to the small states.  First, to sweeten the deal for the smaller states, one should use electoral votes for only one of the two constitutional amendment votes.  I recommend using it for the ratification vote, while using the equal state voting rule for the proposal vote.  Second, the small states would gain from a deal that allowed the state drafting reform to be enacted.  Under the existing national convention approach, the states have equal voting rights when applying for a convention and ratifying the amendment the convention proposes, but since the process is never used, their equal power has little value.  Under the reformed process with ratification based on electoral votes, the small states would have less formal voting power, but their votes would be more valuable because amendment method would be used more often.

The third and final problem with the simple version of the state drafting method is that it potentially allows state legislatures too much power.  Under the simple version, the state legislatures first propose the amendment and then the state legislatures or state conventions ratify the amendment.  While there is no problem with state conventions ratifying the amendment, allowing the state legislatures to both propose and ratify the amendment would confer too much power on a single entity. That entity could then pursue its institutional interests without sufficient constraint.

This problem, however, can be corrected by shifting ratification authority from state legislatures to ballot measures.  A proposed constitutional amendment might be ratified by a simple vote of the people, as are constitutional amendments and other laws in many states throughout the nation.  While the ballot measure would certainly be an innovation for the Constitution, its wide use by the states makes it a familiar and tested device.

It also seems likely that the state legislatures would be willing to propose such an amendment method. While they might prefer having greater power, they would likely understand the importance of having two separate entities involved in the process. Moreover, if the state drafting reform is to be passed, it would need to obtain the support of a national convention, and that convention might be skeptical about approving an amendment that seemed to be a state legislative power-grab.  Further, the state legislatures would also have more actual power under the reformed amendment method than under the ineffectual national convention method.

The reformed amendment process outlined here would resurrect the Constitution’s original design by establishing an amendment method that would both function to allow amendments to pass and would not require the approval of Congress.

Enacting the Reform

The state drafting reform, however, might seem unlikely to be adopted under either the congressional proposal method or the national convention method.  Congress is extremely unlikely to propose a state drafting procedure that would deprive it of the effective veto over the amendment process that it currently enjoys.  This leaves the national convention method.  But that method might seem unlikely to produce this or any amendment, because of the fear of a runaway convention.

There is an irony here in that the very reasons that make the national convention method so important and so problematic also prevent its reform.  But this irony turns out be only apparent. While the national convention method is defective, it may be possible, through significant effort, to use it once to adopt a state drafting amendment. This old, broken car may still be capable of one last trip to the dealership to buy a replacement.

It is true that state legislators are ordinarily wary of applying for a national convention. But by anticipating the difficulties and taking extraordinary actions to prevent them, the state legislatures might be able to significantly reduce the possibility of a runaway convention.  Knowing that this problem could be addressed, the state legislatures might be willing to apply for a convention to enact a state drafting amendment that would significantly enhance their own authority in the future.

The state legislatures could address the difficulties by combining elements of the state drafting procedure with the existing national convention approach.  First, the states should hold a voluntary convention in order to agree on a single specific amendment and a strategy for adopting it.  By proposing a single specifically worded amendment, the states would underscore that they favor a particular amendment.  This would make it harder for a convention to argue that the states were not fully in agreement and therefore the convention should be allowed discretion to formulate different amendments.

Second, the states could take a variety of additional actions that would significantly reduce the possibility of a runaway convention.  Most importantly, they could attempt to promote a legal or moral norm against a runaway convention by passing various measures deeming such conventions illegal or improper.  For example, the state legislatures that apply for a convention to pass the state drafting amendment should also announce in their applications that they believe a runaway convention is both illegal and improper and that they pledge to vote against any other amendment that the convention might propose.

Moreover, state legislators should take strong actions to promote delegates to the convention who are likely to support the state drafting amendment and unlikely to support a runaway convention.  One effective way of promoting such delegates would be to have prospective delegates take pledges to oppose a runaway convention.  The delegates to the convention are likely to be selected either by the state legislature or by a popular election.  If the state legislature selects them, it should insist that the candidates it selects take a pledge to oppose a runaway convention.  If the delegates are chosen through a state election, the legislators should strongly campaign only for the candidates who pledge to vote against a runaway convention.

The legislators should also insist that the delegates agree not to sign or support any rules at the convention that would prevent them from disclosing a decision by the convention to debate a different amendment that the state legislatures had sought.  In that way, these delegates can reveal that the convention is behaving improperly so that the nation can apply political pressure to restrain it.

Finally, the state legislators should attempt to oppose the ratification of an amendment that they had not sought.  If Congress chooses the state legislatures to make the ratification decision, then they can certainly vote against ratification.  If Congress chooses state conventions to make the decision, the state legislatures should strongly campaign against ratification.

These actions by the state legislatures would significantly decrease the possibility that an amendment the state legislatures had not sought would pass.  This, in turn, should make it more likely for state legislatures to be willing to submit applications for the state drafting amendment. Of course, the state drafting amendment, like any proposed amendment, would only have a good chance of passing if it became popular.  But the strategies outlined here suggest that, if the amendment does become popular, there might be a way of enacting it.


Unfortunately, the constitutional amendment process has not functioned as the Framers designed it.  The failure of the national convention process has done great harm to our ability to limit Congress’s power and to protect federalism.  But this failure can be corrected.  The state drafting reform would both revive our ability to limit the federal government and contribute mightily to the good of the nation.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 13, 2012 at 16:16:56 pm

What is Next on America's Fiscal Agenda? How About a BBA?
December 28, 2011

Prosperity is the hope and birthright of every American, exemplifying the very essence of the "American Dream." And yet, prosperity has been in short supply, especially during the past 4-years. Everything that Washington does seems to perpetuate its big-government status-quo, while stifling our nation's grasp for its illusive birthright.

Our Founders crafted a Constitution, charging our government representatives with the fiduciary responsibilities to act in the best financial interests of the American people. However, career politicians have created an entitlement state, where fiscal responsibility has taken a back seat to handouts, to reelections and to maintaining power and control. Decades of reckless government borrowing and spending has now saddled each U.S. taxpayer with $135,000 of the $15.1 Trillion national debt, where our immeasurable borrowing and interest payments now accumulate at a rate of $58,000 per second.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that a small, limited federal government, along with the elimination of our national debt and deficit spending, would usher-in prolonged prosperity for every American, as it is now doing in nations like Switzerland. Unfortunately, congress has a dismal tract record for placing restrictions upon itself. In fact, the last time that congress voluntarily passed Constitutional amendments that reduced their powers, was upon the ratification of the Bill of Rights, December 15, 1791.
The Balanced Budget Amendment Taskforce firmly believes that congress is incapable of placing meaningful reforms upon itself, and that this important Constitutional work is then left to our state legislatures. Article V provides the exact same Constitutional authority to both congress and to the states, to "propose" amendments, such as a federal balanced budget amendment which would be similar to the fiscal requirements that 49 of our 50 states must currently abide by annually.

Some Background:
Since the 1960s, those opposed to the states use of their Constitutional authority have incorrectly argued that an Article V "convention for proposing amendments" would somehow spiral into a Runaway Constitutional Convention or Con-Con... these words are nowhere to be found within the Constitution or within our nation's history. In fact, twelve (12) successful interstate conventions have occurred since the ratification of the Constitution, and none of them became a runaway or exceed their scope. After all, a convention of state delegates is nothing more than a drafting body that comes together, in representation of their states, to address and solve very specific national problems.

Historically, each time that the states have come close to gaining the required two-thirds needed to force congress to call an Article V convention for proposing amendments, congress has instead felt pressured to act (i.e., the popular election of senators, the 1990s BBA, etc.) Even if the states do not actually gain the required two-thirds, the potential use of their Constitutional authority to propose amendments frightens congress (i.e., the states rediscovering their Federalism... perhaps congressional term limits will come next) and will pressure and force congress into acting, as was seen in the early 1900s and in the 1990s.

Our Efforts:
By some counts, we are only 17 states away from the required 34 (two-thirds) needed in order to call for and convene an Article V convention for proposing amendments, where a federal balanced budget amendment could be proposed and then ratified by the states. One of our colleagues, retired Constitutional Law Professor Robert G. Natelson, was recently asked by ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) to write a historically-grounded handbook for their legislative members, concerning the state's proper use of their Article V Constitutional authority.

In addition to the Article V handbook, attorneys and scholars within our group have also written Model Legislation that guides the states through the conventions process, allowing them to pass legislation (within their state houses) in order to set-up legal procedures and protections for ensuring that a convention stays focused on the specific reason(s) why it was called in the first place (i.e., a federal BBA.) Our Model Legislation also allows the states to legally instruct and even recall delegates in order to ensure that a convention does not stray from its intended work.

I encourage you to read the attached handbook, post it on your websites and distribute it to your colleagues. Then, please contact us about how we can work together, as partners committed to passing and ratifying a federal BBA, which would be a monumental step towards reversing decades of reckless government fiscal misconduct.

Our nation and its future generations are depending upon the successful outcome of our tireless work to reform our federal government. Even though we have some very fine, well-meaning senators and representatives within Washington, it will no doubt be left to the states, who originally brought the federal government into existence, to lead our nation back from the very brink of economic disaster.

If we fail to reform the practices of our federal government, it is unlikely that America will celebrate a third centennial.

Robert J. Thorpe
Co-founder, Balanced Budget Amendment Taskforce
[email protected]

Robert J. Thorpe is a former UCLA Ext. instructor, a Constitutional lecturer and author of Reclaim Liberty: 3-Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government. Thorpe is a member of a national team of Constitutional scholars, academics, experts, and lawmakers who volunteer their time assisting state legislators by promoting Article V education, solutions, and several important amendments including a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.

read full comment
Image of Robert J. Thorpe
Robert J. Thorpe
on January 17, 2012 at 11:58:44 am

An amendatory convention (which is what Article V seems to call it) is not to be feared. It has the support of Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 85) and Abraham Lincoln (First Inaugural Address).

A runaway convention cannot happen, unless our republic is irredeemably corrupted. A convention can only run as far as 3/4 of our states will allow. If forty or so states in our Union generally want to radically overhaul our Constitution, then the Constitution is already lost.

The experience of the Convention of 1787 is consistent. That convention only ran as far as eleven states confirmed. Its success depended upon the enormous political capital of George Washington and others. No one in our polity today has such political capital.

A convention today may be the only way to address our nation's fiscal crisis. It is at the state level where institutional interests may prove strong enough to overcome the partisan interests that lead to a deadlock in Congress.

read full comment
Image of David Upham
David Upham
on March 05, 2012 at 20:48:41 pm

Please read The Next American Revolution: How to Demand Congressional Reform NOW. The book proposes a vieolutronary effort in bringing about an Article V convention specifically to force congressional reforms. It suggests the convention consider three amendment proposals: the 28th for term limits; the 29th for simple, but effective campaign finance reform; and, the 30th Amendment to alter the way congressional districts are drawn (to eliminate gerrymandering) and prohibiting favoritism toward any political party (to end monopolistic ballot access restrictions). This will knock the legs out from the corrupted congressional electoral system. This system is the heart of the probem with Congress, and will restore the citizen's legislature we had for the first 150 years.

read full comment
Image of Lalaine
on March 05, 2012 at 22:56:30 pm

Real patriots who love and recpest the US Constitution must support using the Article V convention option; learn all the facts at foavc.org and join at no cost our national nonpartisan group.

read full comment
Image of Seth
on March 06, 2012 at 04:46:03 am

It is my humble iopnion, that the greatest fear of the adversary and his in the world, who together control the world, is to hit them in the heart with love. This is the root. They fear exposure and noncompliance without which they are powerless. The adversary himself has no defence against the repentent heart wholly committed in their relationship with Jesus. The dual nature of creation and all life gets it's foundation in the seven spiritual dimensions, that support the five energetic dimensions. The connection point binding them together is the pineal gland. It is our free will and our spiritual superbeing nature that once awakened by being in relationship, that cannot be overcome by the adversary. Humanities ignorance of our nature keeps us blind to the way to overcome. We refuse to humble our iopnions and remain divided, since we have not yet committed our hearts. Once the foundation is firm, the superstructure will stand. We begin with repentence of the heart. Some of the first works of evil was seperation in the firmament. In these last days of this last age, the separation of our nature is in the energetic or physical. Technologies control us instead of the other way around. To facilitate opposition of the structure of evil is to oppose it in both relms. To ignore either one is failure, since no understanding of man or any instution of man or his knowledge can ever on it's own wisdom, be without corruption and error. To bring others to this understanding and relationship, we have been given the original celebration brought to us by Moses. In this, is the seed of using all that has been freely given, which the enemy hides from us. Individual and corporate will freely given over to the most high is the most effective weapon against he who is in the world. No soul can enter the eternal of his presence without entering by the heart of the son of man .ever. Once we are in wholehearted relationship, there is no power in existance to stop humanity from freely having all else added to us, for this is the tree of life. To do otherwise is the tree of knowledge, and is the way of the adversary, for knowledge is all that remains of his power. He holds nine stones of knowledge of the mind of the most high. Of his so called Illuminated in the world who scratch and climb and claw and kill for this knowledge they follow a carrot in blindness unto eternal death to be forgotten. Our purpose, is to occupy that there is life in the world. The battle must be given over to the son of man who made all things new for us to receive, freely, without struggle, IF WITH LOVE WE WILL ONLY ACCEPT HIM.

read full comment
Image of Mary
on March 06, 2012 at 05:06:48 am

When discussing saareption of church and state, it is critical to distinguish between the public square and government and to distinguish “individual” from government speech on religion. You are correct to note that the First Amendment does not remove religion from the public square far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's free exercise clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views publicly as well as privately. And in practice there is religion aplenty in the public square; I see and hear it daily in the media, on the street, on the internet, etc. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical. The Wake Forest paper does a good job of summarizing how the courts go about sorting this out.You assert that the founders intended only to ensure the government did not create a state sponsored and funded church. The legislative history of the First Amendment belies the narrow scope you would give it. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision ( no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed ) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment's terms and legislative history, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion stopping just short of formally establishing a church.

read full comment
Image of PetraAnne
on March 18, 2012 at 15:07:42 pm

The indivual mdnaate come from the Heritage Foundation and was part of Bob Dole's healthcare reform plan.Closing Gitmo and civilian federal court trials for its inmates was the idea of Pres. G.W. Bush.The START treaty and nuclear disarmament in general was the vision of Pres. Reagan.The graduated income tax system was the started by Pres. T. Roosevelt. Now with the talk about raising those with higher fortunes personal income tax to still under 40% as a Bolshevik/A.C.O.R.N./New Black Panther Party plot while in the glory days of Reagan and now Romney, the income tax levels were at 90%. Who knew USA was a socialist nation at the height of the Cold War?I usually hate this idea often mention by those more politically conservative folks that USA is a center-right nation and moving more far right, but some times I have to wonder.

read full comment
Image of Adriana
on March 20, 2012 at 03:09:44 am

Professor Rappaport,

I've viewed some of your papers recently, and with this here I have trouble reasoning something broken without trying it first. Rather it may be said that Congress is refusing to do their duty. Even though, I'd say Congress can still and must be bypassed, for that was the original intent of Article V.

The ninth or tenth Amendments can be used, maybe, to declare Congress out of order, for their part is simply to acknowledge what we already have seen - more than enough applications submitted.

To require some sort of blessing from Congress becomes immaterial at this point. Congress is clearly wrong, and it is up to the States to take charge if they are so inclined.

What I would say is broken is the will and the duty of each State to act. The Federal part of our country's government came after the States, well some, and while said to be the top layer of our system, the People are said to have granted or passed or consented for these governmental layers to be created and enter into existence.

If a part of our creation is harming us, and has been doing so for some time, it is required we must put forth our will and proceed in order to protect ourselves regardless of Congressional obstruction, for it is we who are responsible for insuring our continuance, in the final analysis.

Article V has no real missing parts, or unsureness to it. Minor grammar issues, but no questions.

When the convention starts, the participants will use the usual method of writing the rules first, for they could not proceed otherwise. Since there is no restriction or clause listed, the States simply do it. Agreement with the Article is consistent - the States proceed as they agree to.

A convention of this type certainly indicates great amiss in the country, since it has not yet occurred. While not an exclusive notion, it seems reasonable. Prerequisites to the convention are immaterial, since Congress has been served. Redaction of application is also immaterial. Redaction's have been attempted in other areas, and while of a different type, we did fight a civil war to counter the theory of redaction. Redaction of application can not be allowed.

Ratification's or applications are served to Congress without an ability for redaction. Congress simply notes one or the other. Some have said a redaction is OK. They can not be. Also claimed is, that if a state fails to ratify when given such with a vote taken so, that this serves to Congress a negative on ratification. No. Congress notes affirmatives only.

The convention rules, again, will be written first, and this may be done with respect to the occasion it deserves. Have faith. The most troubling part, is how each State selects their delegates. This, I reason will be the largest hurdle, for the citizens will demand the utmost respect is these decisions. This point is critical and crucial, and will set the stage.

Regarding amendments before hand is to each state, and unnecessary to consider so. As to the actual way the process goes about, will depend on the rules, and I have no doubt, viewing so as not a complete replacement, but to propose several single amendments for later ratification. Their could be no other rational way for civilized delegates to act.

And then, there is still ratification some time later.

Risks are worth and well more to take, than to be reduced further so without attempting what is clearly right and required. To do or proceed not, is a greater danger, if one considers our situation today.

As to your suggestion of starting in state legislatures, it also may be a large issue to resolve. Many groups will want their pet amendment included. Shutting out the people, may be much frowned upon. We don't know, but if I may interject the thought of proposals by the legislatures be ratified by the people is one I see much need also in. This, thus may insure peaceful and quiet proceedings.

As far as Congress is involved, they must not. Simple. The states must figure these things. Congress is why this topic is being discussed and argued. Congress has failed its role.

I might revisit the rules to be written at the start. These issues, for the first time taken into consideration will be done with great care, but they must be done by the states. No other way will work, for they must learn to do it. Again, Congress has failed. If the convention happens to have moments lacking clarity, they will figure them to resolution. They have no other option.

Nor do the people.

read full comment
Image of Eric Hodgdon
Eric Hodgdon
on June 09, 2012 at 06:16:11 am

Yup.Conservatives speak the language of loyatly. They feel a part of "America" in the abstract, and want to honor the system and the abstraction and, indeed, what they think of as the reality itself.Alas, that means that they tend not to be good about changing the nature of the system, or their leaders, when principles they otherwise approve of hit the dump heap of politicking.Loyalty to group or leader has a cost: loyatly to principles.In this way, libertarians like you and individualists like me, for all our differences, are pretty similar. And this is our similarity to modern statist "liberals," as Jonathan Haidt explains . . . they have a narrowed moral focus, and loyatly to group or leader plays little part of it.(Of course, they do seems altogether too partial to "cool" people, and that's the ancient honor standard revived, if in bastard form.)

read full comment
Image of Nancy
on December 12, 2012 at 07:22:50 am

... [Trackback]...

[...] Infos to that Topic: libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/the-failure-of-the-constitutional-amendment-process-to-protect-federalism-a-diagnosis-and-treatment-plan/ [...]...

read full comment
Image of My Homepage
My Homepage
on March 03, 2015 at 11:58:54 am

I always spent my half an hour to read this blog's posts everyday along with a cup of coffee.

read full comment
Image of www.keelog.com

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.