Why I Support the Constitution Restoration Initiative

Image by Paul Robert Lloyd via Flickr

The Constitution Restoration Initiative  (CRI) is an organization that is trying to reign in what it sees as a an all too powerful federal government. It's main objective is to try to get the states to call for a constitutional convention, where new amendments that supported states rights could be proposed and then hopefully ratified. 

This sort of a movement is typically associated with a conservatives and even ultra-conservatives. Often these movements are portrayed as just another another attempt by conservatives to cut taxes and cut federal programs that help those less fortunate then themselves.

Those of you who know me would probably have a hard time associating the word "conservative" with me. I just don't fit the profile.  I have tattoos, earrings, and like to wear black. I am an ardent environmentalist, and have voted democrat most of my life.  So why would I support a movement such as the CRI?

I happen to know the founder of the CRI. He is a true conservative. He also happens to be a very reasonable guy. As our economy began to melt down, he began to ask me questions about liberal positions that I could not answer. I found I hadn't done much research on my own, I had just been repeating the the liberal party line.  I needed some new ammo.

So, I went back and re-read the US Constitution for the first times since probably high school. I was surprised to find that many parts of the Constitution and Amendments are just ignored today. I am not speaking of the parts that are obviously obsolete or super-ceded by later Amendments. I am talking about the limits placed on Legislative and Executive branches.  

Here for example is the Tenth Amendment.

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.

This states that if the Constitution does does NOT explicitly give the Federal government a power, that power falls to the states or the people. How about the War Powers.  The constitution very clearly gives the right to declare to the legislature not the president.  Today the president declares war or sends off the troops and congress rubber stamps it.  Most of the bailout that has been enacted by congress and the administration are arguably unconstitutional.  There are countless examples.

My first thoughts were, "Oh, well it has been a long time since it was written. Times have changed"  That is true. The constitution originally only counted African Americans and Indians as 3/5 of a person. It was a very different time. We absolutely need a way to keep our laws up to date.  The modern world is so fast and so much more complex.

But I was curious enough to try to read some of what the founders were thinking about when they wrote the constitution. One thread runs through just about everything that I could find is a mistrust of any concentration of power.  The founders went to great lengths to put in a system of checks and balances to keep any one federal branch from gaining too much power.  They also tried to balance the power between the states and the federal government. And of course, they also put in place the separation of church and state.

They did all this because they felt that once any branch of government amassed enough power it would stop serving it's purpose and begin serving itself.  It would become stuck, preserving only the status quo. Change becomes an impossibility.  

This is not a trait particular to government.  This is the nature of power.  To get power, it helps to have power.  So those who have power can amass even more power faster then those who don't.  It is very similar to how life evolves. Attributes that make it more likely for a plant, animal or political party to survive and reproduce are favored, and ones that don't are lost.  Power is one such attribute.

The founders knew this and hoped that they were putting a system in place that would keep that from happening.

The other thing that struck me when I was reading Madison, Jefferson, Webster and others is how much they were trying to protect us from exactly what is happening today.  They were not lost in some distant past.  Their words still ring true today.  Here is one my favorite quotes from Jefferson

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Image via Wikipedia

I looked around at our current situation, and I have to think that too much (if not all) power has been drawn to Washington. And the effects are disastrous. We have a congress stuffed with two political parties that are so entrenched that they can do nothing but support their own best interests. We have lobbyist writing legislation that is supposed to regulate the very industries the represent. We have a just passed Presidential Administration who did what ever they chose. We have a federal Reserve that just prints money whenever ti feels like it.  Where is the restraint?  Where are the checks and balances?

Let me state for the record, that I think that the vast majority of people in government are truly dedicated civil servants. Even most of the elected officials have the very best intentions when they set off to Washington. But the system is too much for them.  The power swallows them whole.

This is not news. All we ever hear is the same old lines coming from the politicians. How many times have you heard the term "Gridlock" used to describe goings on at the capital. How many times have you heard the same tired rhetoric coming from either side that is carefully designed to inflame the fringes and bring in the dough rather then actually solve a problem. This is is not news to anybody. BUT what was news to me was that founders new that this would happen if we didn't watch it.

After all of my reading I was left with some tough questions that sent chills down my spine.  The went something like this

• Who decided we should ignore parts of the constitution?
• If the tenth amendment is being ignored what's next. The first?
• Do we abide by the Constitution? Or do we not? You can't partially abide by it. This is a "Yes" or "No" question.

That last one really smashed me. I did not like either answer.  "Yes" meant that many of the liberal programs that I had personally benefitted from were probably not constitutional. And that quite possibly the massive federal government was at the root of the current financial mess. 

However, to answer "No" we do not was unthinkable. To answer "No" meant the constitution was just an old piece of paper.  To answer "No" was to give in, to let the chips fall were they may. To answer "No" was to abandon future generations to the chaos we had created for them. To Answer "No" was to let die all that is good and great about our country.  I could not answer "No". 

I went back and considered why I was so hesitant to say "Yes".  I am going to save the in depth discussion of this for another post, because it was a long and slightly painful internal process.  But almost every reason traced its way back to fear.  I was afraid of what others might do if given the chance to be free.

In the end I answered "Yes".

With that "Yes", came the realization that we need to do something. We need to break up the power structures that hold us all hostage. If we are going to force the current political industrial machine to abide by the constitution, there is only one way to do it, Article V of our Constitution. Article V  allows for the States to call a Constitutional Convention, propose amendments and ratify them. There is nothing Congress, the President, or either political party can do about it other than scream. And scream they will!

A very common reaction to the thought of a Constitutional Convention is fear. It was my first reaction.  People think "The liberals will get a Gay Marriage amendment through", or "the conservatives will get rid of Social Security". "We had better not give them the chance to do that. That is way too scary"

First, this is not "Conservative" issue, nor is it a "Liberal" issue. It has nothing to do with political ideology at all. It is simply the manner in which we modify our Constitution.  If a convention should come about it is likely that amendments from both sides of the political spectrum would be considered. Getting an amendment through convention, proposed to the states, and the ratified by three fouths of the states will not be easy. Only the very best amendments would stand a chance.

Image by xbettyx via Flickr

Second, Is there any other way to legally change the constitution, other then judicial interpretation?  Many on the left and right have been thinking for years that if the just got the right people in power they could get the right judges appointed all will be well.  So let me ask both sides, "Hows that going, are you making any progress?" The funny part is that both sides probably think they are loosing.

Finally, as for being afraid...  Sometimes in life we have to make choices and we don't know what the outcome will be.  All roads seem filled with uncertainty.  Yeah... sometimes life is scary.  

But it is at those times that you go back to your principles. You look hard at the ideals that you hold dear. And you ask yourself "Should I abandon these principles because I am afraid?"  

Again the answer is "No".

This is after all the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave".  What do you say we go prove it!

Related articles by Zemanta