The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
Page 18
The Nineteenth Amendment ensures that women can vote: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”62
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment eliminates the poll tax, used by segregationists to prevent poor minorities, mostly African-Americans, from voting: “The right of citizens of the United States in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”63
Lastly, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment reduces the age of eligibility to vote. “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”64
• • •
The proposed amendment is intended to ensure that the franchise is secure for all citizens. First, it establishes the requirement for producing an official photo ID that designates the individual’s citizenship to register to vote and vote. Although it is conceivable that a particular individual might not be able to satisfy a photo ID requirement, such IDs would be provided free of charge, as provided in every state that has adopted the photo ID requirement.
Moreover, the proposed amendment continues early voting, but only when circumstances warrant and only for a limited, specified time period, contrary to the chaotic trend toward multi-month-long voting cycles. As with most laws, the election laws—at least respecting the selection of the president, vice president, and members of Congress—need to be predictable, reliable, and consistent.
Indeed, limiting the number of early-voting days will ensure that the electorate will be casting their votes under the same general conditions. The advent of earlier and earlier voting schemes has produced circumstances where the electorate is divided into segments of dissimilarly informed voters. Some voters are making their judgments shortly after primary elections, others just before or after national party conventions, and still more following one or more candidate debates. The remaining electorate casts its ballots after a fully completed campaign. Premature decisions can lead to perverse results. The objective of federal elections is to achieve a national judgment for national leadership.
Furthermore, under the proposed amendment, where registration and/or voting is not in person, such as by mail, voters must submit an approved citizen-designated photo ID demonstrating eligibility for voting to become registered to vote and request ballots from state election officials no later than forty-five calendar days before the primary or general elections. And to ensure mail-in ballot security, ballots must also be returned and signed by the voter and must either be mailed or hand-delivered by the voter to election officials. If delivered by a third party, the voter must provide written authorization for the person making the delivery and the third party must sign a statement certifying that he did not unduly influence the voter’s decisions.
Finally, no state may adopt an electronic voting system (or other technology-based systems) unless it is reliably secure, given the vulnerability of electronic databases to cyberattacks and other forms of hacking, manipulation, and corruption.
The proposed amendment’s language and purpose are straightforward. The voter registration and voting requirements are vastly less burdensome and complicated than, for example, the Internal Revenue Code, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and most federal laws and regulations that engulf a citizen in his daily life. The proposed amendment will improve the integrity and reliability of the electoral process in national elections, which is increasingly chaotic; deter and detect voter fraud; and ensure that only individuals who are entitled to vote—citizens—actually vote. The proposed amendment is neutral, nondiscriminatory, and champions universal suffrage.
EPILOGUE
* * *
THE TIME FOR ACTION
NO DOUBT, IN A twist of logic, the state convention process and The Liberty Amendments will be assaulted by the governing masterminds and their disciples as an extreme departure from the status quo and, therefore, heretical, as they resist ferociously all efforts to diminish their power and position. Paradoxically, it is they who distort the Constitution’s text and trespass its purpose by actively pursuing its nullification and abandonment. History demonstrates that republics collapse when demagogues present themselves as their guardians to entice the people and cloak their true intentions. I have no illusions about the Statists’ capacity to induce confusion and spread disinformation in defense of their own ambition and aggrandizement. Indeed, the closer the approach to constitutional restoration, should that day arrive, a torrent of fuming and malevolent rage will, predictably, let loose, alleging perfidy by the true reformers.
Moreover, it is an obtuse and defeatist notion of moderation that accepts the disposition of inevitable societal self-destruction without recourse to an available escape. Its irrationality is self-evident. Reacquainting ourselves with a legitimate constitutional remedy, which we, the people, cherish and our public officials swear to uphold, should not be perceived or dismissed as a radical deviation from normative principles but a prudent, rational, and civil response to their disembowelment. The state convention process is a product of the Constitutional Convention, envisioned for exactly this moment, and The Liberty Amendments are intended to restore the Framers’ work. This is not to say that all class of doubters, holding contrary sentiments, should be dismissed and their arguments declared meritless or contrived. Rational debate stimulates improvement by tapping into the experience, knowledge, and judgment of others. The entire state convention enterprise relies on, and rouses, the broadest public participation and deliberation.
There will also be those who insist sincerely that electing the right president and Congress, and appointing the right justices, is not only more practicable but preferable to amending the Constitution. They will cling to a particular election or judicial decision as evidence of vibrant republicanism, deluded by short respites and interludes to escape the intellectual and practical reality of societal transformation. I am all for the election of candidates and the confirmation of justices who are faithful to the Constitution. Obviously, the amendment process does not preclude such efforts. But let us acknowledge the infrequency of these occurrences and the greater rarity of fidelity by these officials, once ensconced in high office, to constitutional boundaries. In fact, even the most virtuous and resourceful among them do not and cannot possess the aptitude and muscle to penetrate the daunting entrenchment and institutionalized apparatuses of the federal government. Furthermore, the increasingly and significantly cloistered operations of the federal branches, the willful concealment of deliberations, the delegation of power to elusive and unaccountable bureaucracies, and the centralization and concentration of authority are all intended to evade the Constitution, confound the citizen, and suppress self-government. This is a systemic problem that is bigger than any single federal election or administration.
The unambiguous evidence reveals that much of what the federal government does is unaffected by elections; this is the consequence of the Statists’ design. Like Woodrow Wilson several years before him, Franklin Roosevelt made public his frustration and conceit, doing so on May 18, 1926, in a lecture at Milton Academy titled “Whither Bound?” Roosevelt lamented the limits of constitutional republicanism on the federal government’s power.1 As he explained, “Measured by years the actual control of human affairs is in the hands of conservatives for longer periods than in those of liberals or radicals. When the latter do come into power, they translate the constantly working leaven of progress into law or custom or use, but rarely obtain enough time in control to make further economic or social experiments. . . . Our national danger is, however, not that it may for four years or eight years become liberal or even radical, but that it may suffer from too long a period of the do-nothing or reactionary standards.”2
Meanwhile, the American people are extremely dissatisfied with the federal government. Nearly three-fourths view it unfavorably; only 28 percent favorably. Conversely, local and state governments are regarded more highly by large majorities, 63 percent and 57 percent, respectively.3 This creates an extremely volatile and unhealthy atmosphere in what is supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”4 How much longer can such widespread and deep public discontent with the federal government persist? Is it not time to rescue what is ours by civil and legitimate means?
The state legislatures, acting collectively, have enormous power. They grasp the ultimate authority to restore the American Republic and bolster the civil society. The state convention process bypasses the intractable architects of this calamity, who have obstructed and sabotaged all other routes to constitutional adherence. It is a bottom-up, grassroots initiative that empowers the citizenry, organizing in neighborhoods and communities, and working through the state legislatures, to stem federal domination, reverse course, and escape ruin.
The Framers, including George Mason, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, were not alone in their support for the state convention process. As attorney Russell L. Caplan, in his book Constitutional Brinkmanship, notes, former president Dwight Eisenhower, during his commencement address in May 1963 at Defiance College in Ohio, urged the graduating class to help return the rights lost to “a distant bureaucracy.” Eisenhower, also fed up with the Warren Court, stated, “Through their state legislatures and without regard to the federal government, the people can demand and participate in constitutional conventions in which they can, through their own action, adopt such amendments as can and will reverse any trends they see as fatal to true representative government.”5
During his presidency, Ronald Reagan referred repeatedly and approvingly to the state convention process in his battles with Congress over federal spending, a balanced budget, and the budget process. On August 12, 1987, in a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office, Reagan stated, among other things, that “[t]he Congressional budget process is neither reliable nor credible—in short, it needs to be fixed. We desperately need the power of a constitutional amendment to help us balance the budget. Over 70 percent of the American people want such an amendment. They want the federal government to have what 44 state governments already have—discipline. If the Congress continues to oppose the wishes of the people by avoiding a vote on our balanced-budget amendment, the call for a constitutional convention will grow louder. . . . ”6
The state convention process provides a constitutional way out, where, as George Mason declared, “the [federal] Government should become oppressive.” And The Liberty Amendments offer a collection of reforms—a plan based on our founding principles—which address the Statists’ most severe malpractices and distortions by decentralizing the accumulation of federal power, reviving federalism, and securing consensual governance.
I recognize the daunting task before us. But if there are better alternatives for effectively restoring the American Republic consistent with constitutional republicanism, not abstractions or novelties, they have hitherto not been presented. Perhaps, at a minimum, this project will kindle them. Let us hope so. There is no reason to be passive witnesses to societal dissolution, at the command of governing masterminds in the federal government and their disciples.
In the end, the people, upon reflection, will decide their own fate once their attention is drawn. As President Reagan stated, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us that we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”7
Let us do all that can be done. Let us be inspired by the example of our forefathers and their courage, strength, and wisdom. Let us be inspirited by the genius of the Constitution and its preservation of the individual and the civil society. Let us unleash an American renaissance in which liberty is celebrated and self-government is cherished. Let us, together—we, the people—restore the splendor of the American Republic.
Time is of the essence. Let us get started today!
APPENDIX
* * *
THE AMENDMENTS
An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.
SECTION 2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.
An Amendment to Restore the Senate
SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I.
SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.
SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.
An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.
SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.
SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.
SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Suprem
e Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.
Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxing
Spending
SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.
SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.
SECTION 3: Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
SECTION 4: Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.
SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal.
SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.