We have discussed the option of a Bill of Federalism and the effort to amend the Constitution of the United States.  Since then, many more questions have arisen by interested people and people who are genuinely concerned about opening up the proverbial “Pandora’s Box”.  In light of this interest, it is important to understand the reality of the amendment process and a constitutional convention in particular.

As stated at www.constitutionfacts.com, “the framers of the Constitution realized that no document could cover all of the changes that would take place to ensure its longevity.  In order for an amendment to be passed, a number of steps must be taken as outlined in Article V.  The article provides for two methods for the proposal and two methods for the ratification of an amendment.  An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate or a national convention called by Congress at the request of 2/3 of the state legislatures.  The latter procedure has never been used.  The amendment may then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (38 states) or special conventions called in 3/4 of the states.  The 21^st amendment (repeal of prohibition) was the only one to be adopted in this way.  However, it is the power of Congress to decide which method of ratification will be used.”

As we consider the seriousness of an effort such as amending our Constitution, and in particular proposing the Bill of Federalism, we must realize that this document has been modified a total of sixteen times since its inception and the establishment of the Bill of Rights.  In fact, no constitutional convention has been called by the states since the Philadelphia Convention, now known as the Constitutional Convention.  As such, the concerns expressed by many who would fear that the process is co-opted by a liberal leaning legislature are somewhat overstated. In addition, the ratification process itself protects, to a large degree, against overt manipulation of the amendment process and language in particular. 

In fact, due to the latency between agreeing a constitutional amendment and ratifying that amendment often being years, Congress decided to act.  As a result, a time limit for the ratification process was set forth.  The limit of seven years was first applied to the 18^th Amendment (prohibition), and the decision concerning a “reasonable” time period for ratification is determined by Congress according to the Supreme Court case Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).  One might find humor in the fact that the 18^th and 21^st amendments instituted the first time limit and the first state conventions for approval of an amendment and both dealt with alcoholic beverages!  That Congress could be so efficient and engaging in dealing with the subject of inebriation is somewhat ironic – especially as they are spending like “drunken sailors” (my apologies in advance to my sailor readers) and they don’t ever seem to come into port!  More will be covered on this and the implications for your finances in a subsequent blog.

You may be surprised to discover that there have been close to 10,000 amendments proposed in Congress since 1789, and only a fraction of a percentage of those receives enough support to actually go through the constitutional ratification process. The success rate of an amendment to become part of the Constitution is less than one percent!  As such, the concerns that have been YouTube’d, blogged and discussed by many seem out of touch with the reality of the process and the challenges set forth in Article V.  As a practical matter, we should be less concerned with any corruption of the process and control of the content of the amendment than we are about the state of affairs we now find ourselves in the lack of any budget control and the overreaching Washington elite.

So what is the implication in our own effort and the pursuit of the Bill of Federalism?  As we have stated, we are committed to working for such an amendment of the Constitution in the strategic view; however, our pragmatic and tactical orientation is to apply these principals in the day to day operations of The Memphis TEA Party organization.  It is this context that both supports the momentum of the TEA party events while also creating actionable ideas in the political realm, locally, state-wide and nationally.  And while we are all too aware of the challenging reality of making any changes to the Constitution, it no less animates our behavior and strategic sensibilities.  For without the clear objectives of education, effective communication and informed election, it becomes difficult to sustain the interest of the body politic over and above event oriented activities.  As Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”