The Federalism Amendment

[aquapub]

To: State Legislatures
We the people of the United States of America are shocked, outraged and appalled at the unprecedented and blatantly un-Constitutional expansion of government into every aspect of our lives. The federal government has systematically and illegally nationalized nearly all power away from the states and local governments, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community.

It has brazenly violated the sovereignty of our states more times and in more ways than we can even begin to count at this point, and its corrupt, self-serving tyranny is now driving this country into the ground.

Congress has become completely unaccountable, openly serving its own interests, at the expense of ours. It has become adversarial to our rights and general welfare. It imposes crippling, unprecedented tax hikes, matched only by the most staggering deficit spending in our entire history. We are being irreversibly bankrupted and our children robbed of their futures.

This is unacceptable.

We hereby call upon you to petition Congress for a convention to propose a new Amendment to the Constitution--The Federalism Amendment, as outlined by Randy E. Barnett, in "The Case for a Federalism Amendment," on April 23, 2009 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html):

Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or un-enumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.

This "expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not 'commerce . . . among the several states,' but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or un-enumerated liberty of the people must be justified."

Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

This "then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I."

Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.

This "adopts James Madison's reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments."

Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.

"This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a 'uniform' national sales or 'excise' tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax."

Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.

This "authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress's enumerated powers."

Click here to sign this new petition.

We are waiting until Democrats are out of power (which all appearances indicate will be soon) to even consider submitting this, so it is a very long-term project. As ceaseless left-wing attacks on the Constitution and the economy drive the electorate further towards anyone but Democrats, this movement will pick up more and more steam, and eventually be put into play at the right time.

Also, if the ludicrous adoption of Canada's disastrous health care approach doesn't appeal to you, or if you oppose the Democrats' cap-and-tax economic suicide plan, you might consider signing our Health Care petition and the 9/12 petition. It's easy, quick, private, and there are even more on our site.

 

[Redress]

I am waiting with baited breath to see how Aquapub spins this into a poll. It might be much better placed in a more appropriate forum.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or un-enumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.

Well, that's probably covered in more specific language in the Constitution already, so why bother? If the Courts refuse to enforce the existing Constitution, they're going to ignore this part of the NIC (the New and Improved Constitution, or, as some will certainly tell us, the Betterer Constitution.)

This "expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not 'commerce . . . among the several states,' but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or un-enumerated liberty of the people must be justified."

No, the Framers didn't give a flying rat's behind about "pollution", they were a pre-industrial society. Also, as noted, pollution isn't "commerce" and hence should not be regulated by the Interstate Commerce Clause.

So, what the people who wrote this amendment are saying is that they want a stronger EPA?

Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Congress is already so inhibited and so authorized, so again, what's the point?

Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.

Again, this is already in the Constitution, so what's the point?

Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.

Won't complain about that.

Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.

The judiciary has ZERO power to enforce anything. Also, the judiciary has zero power to nullify anything in the Constitution itself, including any and all Amendments.

And what shall the "public" meaning of the Amendment be, after five thousand pundits arguing 24/7/365 for 6 years twist and turn every meaning of ever word to mean anything and everything so that down is sideways and sideways both backwards and up?

This clause is what's known as the Jesus Spring, for what people say when opening a mysterious box on a machine they've never worked with before, and the spring preloaded to million pounds jumps out at them.

This "authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress's enumerated powers."

The judiciary could already be keeping Congress inside it's cage.

The judiciary, however, ruled the wrong way on Roe vs Wade and on Kelo vs New London, to name just two cases where judicial power lust exceeded Constitutional authority.

 

[celticlord]

Congress has become completely unaccountable, openly serving its own interests, at the expense of ours. It has become adversarial to our rights and general welfare. It imposes crippling, unprecedented tax hikes, matched only by the most staggering deficit spending in our entire history. We are being irreversibly bankrupted and our children robbed of their futures.

This is unacceptable.

This is also not new. Congress has been a corruptocracy almost from the outset, and especially since the Civil War, the aftermath of which saw the rise of the big political "machine".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

No poll. Moved to the appropriate forum.

 

[York_Curmudgeon]

To me, the amendment would be redundant given the 10th amendment. Obviously, the commerce clause and necessary and proper clauses have allowed the federal government to hold sway over what seems to be "everything" involving the states. There is a line in the sand though and New York vs. United States drew it when it was ruled that the feds cannot force the states to enforce federal law. Precedent continues to support the commerce & necessary & proper clauses despite minority opinion to the contrary. I do agree that the precedent can be a bit of a stretch and that it was obviously the case in this instance where the deciding factor was a product that was made which could have made it to the open market. In reading about this case, I can't help but shake my head.:shock: It is interesting to note that it was the Bush administration and Attorney General Gonzalez who made it possible for a federal over reach due to their hang up about the war on drugs. :2usflag: