I keep repeating this, but it really is heartwarming to hear regular people talking about the Constitution lately. With this crop of politicians in control, many Americans now clearly realize why the constitution’s specific controls on the scope of government are so vital to our future. These conversations are no longer limited to libertarian-leaning web sites and are finally no longer the Inside Baseball type discussion that they once were. Now that the subject might come up, some pundits need to refresh their memory on some of the details of the brilliant charter of our government.
During a regular O’Reilly Factor segment with Lis Weil and Kimberly Guilfoyle last night (March 30th), Bill mentioned the legislation recently passed in Idaho that will require that the state’s Attorney General sue the federal government to block any insurance mandate included in President Obama’s health care takeover. When he was discussing it, O’Reilly actually said that if two-thirds of the states did this then it would add a Constitutional amendment! I am not kidding, and neither of the lawyers sitting with him on the segment questioned him on it. I was pretty stunned.
On the next segment, which included Charles Krauthammer, he admitted that Dr. Krauthammer had corrected him during the break and Bill said that it requires three-fourths of the states in order to ratify an amendment. I have no doubt that Krauthammer knew full well how completely wrong Bill O’Reilly was in that segment. You probably do as well.
In fact, as readers of this blog are likely aware, there are only two ways to get a Constitutional amendment on the table for potential ratification by the states. Only one of them has ever been used. The unused method is a Constitutional Convention, which many reasonable people believe to be highly inadvisable because everything is essentially on the table – it is not limited in scope. The only other method requires that both houses of the United States Congress pass a specific proposed amendment with a two-thirds majority. Regardless of how the amendment is proposed to the states, three-fourths of the several states must then ratify the proposed amendment in their state legislatures for it to become a Constitutional Amendment. This process is intentionally difficult and lengthy, providing a long time for analysis, criticisms, and reflection. Contrast that with the “living and breathing” nonsense of the non-Originalist crowd…
I think that Bill just got confused about the ratio required for the States’ to call a convention and what the Idaho state legislature actually did. But since we are all sharpening our rhetorical swords here to take part in this peaceful constitutional revolution, let’s take this opportunity to clarify the facts.
Here is the actual text of Article 5 of the US Constitution from the US Constitution Online:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Let’s break it down just to be clear.
- Amendments can be proposed by either:
- A vote of two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.
- The never used Constitutional Convention, which will be called when two-thirds of the states’ legislatures apply for it.
- Amendments can only be ratified with the agreement of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
I think that the biggest chance that we have of rolling this back is going to come as a result of push-back from the states themselves. Does anyone else remember the 10th amendment? Lefties can spare me the tortuous and consistently tyrannical Commerce Clause claims until they can defend something like Wickard v. Fillburn.
The federal government was granted very few enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 for a reason. That reason is becoming clearer and clearer to more and more Americans watching the Obama Government Love onslaught.
