Thursday, May 28, 2009

Federalism Ammendent Update

In followup to a previous post, 35 states have now passed some sort of sovereignty resolution this year. If you would count them all as supporters of a Constitutional Convention limiting the powers of the federal government, they're 1 over what they would need to call a convention but 3 short of actually passing anything. It would be interesting to see happen. It would be like a drop kick in the NFL or watching the Cubs play an Americal League team before MLB came up with Interleague Play.

Also, in a tangential story, thanks, Fair Taxers. Go talk about a national sales tax and look what happens. I'm sure in the coming months VAT will be pitched as the only way to keep our government running (conveniently ignoring the option to stop spending so much). And they're not even going to give us the courtesy of pretending to abolish the IRS for a few years.


Bill Walker said...

The author is incorrect. All of the resolutions he refers to were made or expressed support of the Tenth Amendment. As such they are no applications for a convention unless they contained language expressing that the resolution (most of which were non-binding and terminated at the end of that legislative term) was also an application for an Article V Convention (in which case it would not terminate at the end of the legislative term but remain on going as Article V contains no limitation of time on an application).

In short, the states can't be assumed to be asking for a convention in these resolutions. Actually there is no need to do so. As shown at the FOAVC website, all 50 states have applied for a convention 750 times. Congress has refused to honor them and call a convention. What's needed now is not more applications, but pressure on Congress to obey the Constitution and in this the Tenth Amendment resolutions and the Article V applications share the identical goal.

The resolutions express the frustrations. Article V allows the states to do something about it.

Dante said...

I'm merely posting on what could happen, not what has happened or what I think will happen. I never said the 35 states in question made applications for convention nor assumed they intended to do so with these specific sovereignty resolutions. I'm merely pointing out a scenario in which a Constitutional Convention could occur. It would be interesting to see it happen. That doesn't mean I think it will happen. Then again, a few years ago I didn't Doug Flutie had the wherewithal to actually drop kick a field goal after a 4th down play went awry.