The Case for a Federalism Amendment

In response to an unprecedented expansion of the federal government and its power in just the first 90 days of the Hussein Obama administration, citizens have held hundreds of “tea party” rallies around the country (most of which either ignored by the media, or mocked). Also several states are considering “sovereignty resolutions” invoking the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal: Michigan’s proposal urges “the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.” More from the WSJ:

While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Article V provides that, “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,” Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

April 22, 2009 · Filed Under Tea Parties


Comments