Month: November 2015

If we get an Article V Convention, and it agrees on a proposed BBA, Congress will decide how it will be ratified.  We assume Republicans will be in control of both the House and the Senate after the 2016 election.  I assume there will be a Republican President.  The most likely scenario is that the 34 state threshold is met in early 2017, in the first months of the new President’s term.  The President will have an opinion on the better mode of ratification.  He will be in the midst of his political honeymoon with Congress, and there will be pressure to accommodate his wishes.

Whoever he is, he will have promised to balance the budget.  There’s a reason John Kasich  –who knows more about balancing the federal budget than the rest of the field combined  —  is the one candidate who has campaigned, and campaigned hard, for a BBA through Article V.  If he is elected, he will balance the budget, but he knows he’s going to need the club of a Constitutional Amendment to beat Congress into submission in order to do it.  Kasich gets it.

I expect Rubio or Cruz to be President in 2017, and they’ll reach the same conclusion as Kasich.  If you want to actually get a balanced budget out of Congress, any Congress, you’re going to have to beat it out of them.  And a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by 38 States, after having been proposed by the States, will be a mighty club.

So the President gets Ryan and McConnell down to the White House, and asks them to choose ratification by State Convention.  It’s been done once before, to repeal Prohibition.  This way you get a decision within a year, meaning it will be in effect within the first two years of the President’s term  —  in time to be of value.  And in purple or blue states with hostile Democratic majorities, the state legislatures are cut out of the process.  It goes to the voters directly, up or down.

I think this is the most likely scenario.  If the Democrats win the Senate next year we’re screwed.  Even if we got to 34 we’d never see the light of day.  If Hillary wins we’re screwed.  She doesn’t really care about the Constitution.

If for some reason Congress chose the route of legislative ratification, we have a problem.  It’s impossible for us to have complete control of 38 state legislatures, which means a legislative chamber controlled by Democrats would have to pass it.  This could be very difficult.  Something which is viewed as extreme or partisan could be stopped by a handful of Democratic state legislators.

This is the challenge for the Amendment Convention.  They must craft a proposal designed to appeal to purple state voters in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon.  Input from well meaning and serious Democrats would be appreciated.  But they should not have veto power over this decision.  That should be up to a simple majority of the states, or 26.  We will rely on the political judgment of these 26 state delegations.  They will decide what can be ratified, and what cannot.

This argument will be conducted at the Assembly of State Legislatures meeting in Salt Lake on Wednesday, November 11th, 1:00 MST.  It may be on C-Span.  You can get a live stream off the  Assembly of State Legislatures website.

Perhaps I’m a little out of touch, living up here in the mountains, but if I’m a voter in Missouri and I see what’s going on at the University I’m going to be royally pissed off.  It’s an absolute disgrace.  The thing is, this has been going on for decades.  I remember a lot of this exact same stuff happening in the 60’s.  These university people have absolutely no balls.  Nobody remembers Sen. S. I. Hayakawa of California, but he stood up to these crazy bastards at S.F. State, and got elected to the U. S. Senate because of it.

There are political implications to a lot of the craziness that’s going on.

Happily, Americans live on an island, sharing it with our Canadian and Mexican friends.  Just because North America is continental does not make us less insular.  We are blessed to reside in “This fortress built by Nature for herself.”

As island dwellers we are naturally secure. Unlike the majority of humanity which occupies Eurasia, we have no neighbors which pose any sort of threat to us.  We are therefor a peaceful people, with a powerful aversion to foreign wars.  Since Washington, we have sought to avoid foreign entanglements.

Island nations must control the seas for their security, so when the Germans began unrestricted submarine warfare  in 1917, they forced us into a war we didn’t want.    We likewise did not want to fight in World War II.  It took Pearl Harbor to get us into it.  We did not want to fight the Cold War.  But when an island nation is threatened by a hostile potential world hegemon, it must resist, just as the British resisted Napoleon.

With our English speaking cousins, the fellow island dwellers of Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, we are the backbone of freedom in this world.  And we find ourselves in the curious position as the security guarantor of Israel, which lives in a violent and unstable region.  For a complex set of reasons, the people of the United States have determined that they will not allow Israel to be destroyed.  Period.

Because of its oil, until now we’ve always had a strategic interest in the Middle East.  We live in an age of oil.  As Daniel Yergin shows  conclusively in his brilliant The Prize, “Energy is the basis of industrial society.”  As such, ever since WW I, energy security is national security.  Almost a hundred years ago, ten days after the Armistice, British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon said, “The Allied cause floated to victory upon a wave of oil.”  It was oil, or the lack thereof, that brought the Nazis and Imperial Japan to their knees in WW II.

Because of our fracking revolution, we’ve recently discovered that our island is energy self sufficient.  We don’t need anybody’s oil, and that means we won’t fight anyone for oil.  The Middle East, and all of its oil, is a problem for Europe and Asia, but not for us.  Aside from Israel, this part of the world isn’t worth the life of one Nebraska paratrooper.  If Europe and Asia are cut off from Mideast oil, it could cause a worldwide economic recession, which would be a shame.  But we should not send our youth to fight and die in wars which are purely for economic interests.  That’s a job for mercenaries, not the American armed forces.

Bush 2 invaded Iraq ostensibly for weapons of mass destruction, but it was really a war for oil, and oil stability.  Now that that debacle is behind us, new apologists for intervention arise, telling us we must resist the expansion of Russian influence in the region, even going so far as to a call for no fly zones in the area.

Why?  Why is this in our vital national interests?  In case you haven’t been paying attention, Russia is now a Christian, not a communist nation.  It does not seek world hegemony.  Why are we afraid of an assertive Russia in this region?  Is it a threat to Israel?  Decidedly not.

When Donald Trump says let the Russians take on ISIS, he’s speaking for the American people.  They’ll be better at it than we would be, because they’re ruthless, brutal, and immune to “public opinion.”

Competitors in the Sheldon Adelson primary, such as Marco Rubio, are making a major and potentially costly mistake by beating their chests over the Middle East.  Adelson is a patriotic American and a patriotic Israeli all rolled into one.  But our interests are not Israel’s interests.  The American people, averse to war to begin with, and secure behind our oceanic defenses, will not tolerate another Middle East war.  A police action to destroy ISIS, in coordination, not opposition, to Russia, is certainly a possibility, as long as it does not include any form of nation building.

The next President needs a real reset with the Russians, and a whole new strategy in the Middle East.  But if a Presidential candidate is perceived as quick for war, they may pay a very high price.  The world of geopolitics is evolving in new directions, and it is a time for caution.

While men are not islands, nations are, and should act accordingly.

The previous post was by Bill Fruth, one of the original Task Force Co-Founders, and an indefatigable ambassador of the cause.  If we ever do get this done, no one, up to and including Lew Uhler, will deserve more credit than Bill.  He’ll be going to the Assembly of State Legislatures’ meeting in Salt Lake, along with Dave Biddulph and Hal Wick, to represent the Task Force as observers.  The legislators who share our commitment to one state, one vote, including Sen. Bill Cowsert of Georgia, will be there to advance our arguments.  This should turn out well.  Reasonable people can have their disagreements, argue and resolve them, and then move forward in unity.   This what we hope for and expect.

“Happily, Americans live on an island, sharing it with our Canadian and Mexican friends.  Just because North America is continental does not make us less isolated.  We are blessed to reside in “This fortress built by Nature for herself.”

As island dwellers we are naturally secure. Unlike the majority of humanity which occupies Eurasia, we have no neighbors which pose any sort of threat to us.  We are therefor a peaceful people, with a powerful aversion to foreign wars.  Since Washington, we have sought to avoid foreign entanglements.

Island nations must control the seas for their security, so when the Germans began unrestricted submarine in 1917, they forced us into a war we didn’t want.    We likewise did not want to fight in World War II.  It took Pearl Harbor to get us into it.  We did not want to fight the Cold War.  But when an island nation is threatened by a hostile potential world hegemon, it must resist, just as the British resisted Napoleon.”

The above paragraphs are from a piece I submitted to the American Thinker today.  I’ll link to the article if and when they put it up.

I wrote it in response to a Rubio ad I saw on Fox, put out by his Superpac.  It was well done, but completely wrongheaded.  It made him look like he’s Kennedy , ready to go forth and fight the Communists.  But Russia isn’t communist any more, and it is our competitor, not our enemy.  Vladimir (rhymes with redeemer) Putin is more of a Christian than Barack Hussein Obama, as far as I can tell.  This Superpac looks like it’s run by a bunch of neocons, or something, and they portray Rubio far too hawkishly.  This is dangerous ground.  The American people have had it with wars in the Middle East, and will not vote for someone who looks eager to get in another one.

I’m happy to see the attacks coming in on Rubio and Carson.  Put everything on the table up front.  Throw everything you’ve got at them. Come time for the general election, it’s all old stuff.   Trump put his finger on Carson’s real problem.  He asked O’Reilly, “Did you ever hit your mother?”  Carson says he tried to hit his mother with a hammer when he was a kid.  It shows how far he’s come, aided by his Christian faith.  I still find it disturbing.  So did Babbie, which means it’s important.

On a conference call today Fruth repeated his assertion that if the ASL comes out with rules that strictly adhere to the one state, one vote principal, we can get to 34 next year, and wrap this thing up.  He’s been at this longer than I have, and is more on top of the situation in our target states, so this is not just smoke.  It could happen.

It would be the start of really making America great again.

At a convention of the states to propose an amendment to the Constitution, the vote of a majority of the several states is sufficient to propose an amendment.

Some individuals preparing the rules for a convention of the states believe a vote of a super majority (34) of the states should be required in order to propose an amendment.

They base their argument on the premise that if the convention cannot get 2/3rds of the states to propose, then the amendment could not gain the required 3/4ths (38) to ratify.

The proponents assume a great deal regarding the amount of power and influence a handful of delegates at the convention have over how a legislature, which has yet to be elected, will vote on a proposed amendment.

The ratification process will extend at least seven years from when Congress returns it to the legislatures for ratification. During that period there are at least three election cycles.

No amendment has ever been ratified without the popular support of a large majority of the people. The people will determine if an amendment is ratified, not the current composition of a state legislature. The political composition of a legislature could change based upon the popularity of the amendment.

Additionally, the proponents also argue that if Congress needs 2/3rds to propose, the Convention should be required to have 2/3rds to propose.

Forgotten in this argument is the fact the states have already met a 2/3rds threshold through the arduous process of securing 2/3rds (34) of the states to pass a resolution to convene the convention. This process required at least 138 affirmative votes for the amendment subject which includes 68 committee votes and 68 floor votes.

To then require the convention to have a 2/3rds requirement to propose would be similar to requiring a state legislature to have a 3/4ths majority in both houses to ratify an amendment, as the Constitution requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment. In almost every state, a simple majority is required.

Requiring a greater vote than a majority of the states (26) at a convention will likely result in either a very weak amendment being proposed which would prevent it from being ratified or a deadlocked convention.

Should a majority of the states settle on the language of an amendment and there is a requirement to have the support of more states, the minority will then control the amendment language. This will cause a dilution in the “quality of the amendment.”

The further away the threshold of states to propose is from a majority, the greater the influence of the minority, as for each state needed above the majority, each additional state will place its demands upon the language.

This will eventually cause the amendment language to be far from the will of the majority which will result in proposing an amendment which the majority will not support during ratification or a deadlocked convention if the minority refuses to participate.

The issue of whether an amendment will be ratified rests with the “quality” of the amendment and not its perceived ability to be ratified at the time it is proposed. The people will examine the amendment and determine if it has merit.

William H. Fruth

National Co-Founder, Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force

A year ago John Kasich decided to fly around the country and campaign for the Article V BBA.  He even named his private jet “Balanced Budget Forever”.  He didn’t reach out to the Task Force, but Fruth went to Columbus and explained to Kasich’s staff what we were doing.  They realized we were the people to work with,  and we coordinated our efforts until recently, when he started concentrating exclusively on his Presidential campaign.

There are two distinct if related parts of our campaign: 1) the Balanced Budget Amendment and 2)  the use of Article V to achieve it.  Kasich was all in on the BBA.  But he seemed ambivalent about Article V.  He just wanted to use it to pressure Congress into passing a BBA itself.

I think Kasich’s plenty smart, so what this means to me is that he’s an elitist.  Either that or he has a complete lack of imagination.  He’d rather have Congress write a BBA than an Amendment Convention.  He doesn’t completely trust a Convention.  He trusts Congress more.  He either doesn’t like or doesn’t understand Article V, so he’s never promoted it.  He’ll talk all day about the need for a BBA.  He has never, to my knowledge, explained to people how Article V works, and praise it as the ultimate safeguard of our liberty.

Based on my experience explaining Article V to people, it’s a very attractive proposition, politically.  Everybody, and I mean everybody, hates Congress.  It’s corrupt beyond redemption.  The federal government is viewed by half the people in this country as the greatest threat to their freedom.  We’re $19 trillion in the hole, but they party on.  When you explain to people that the States, under Article V, have the power to amend the Constitution without Congress being involved, they go, “Really?”  And then you say we’re getting close to passing a BBA this way, they’re amazed.  “You can do that?”

When I got started on this two years ago I explained what I was doing to my granddaughter.  She was nine.  She understood, and she’s not a prodigy.  This is an issue to run on.  It’s really not hard to explain.  And we’re not a bunch of crackpots.  We’ve got 27 states, and a clean shot at 34 next year.

People like hearing about Article V.  A lot of them realize how farsighted the Framers were when they included it.  For a Republican, running for President, right now, this is one to run on.  Kasich has chosen not to do so.  The ball is lying on the ground.  All someone needs to do is pick it up and run with it.

Because Article V is all about federalism, and federalism is all about tolerance.  The people of California can have the most pro-choice laws in the country, as far as I’m concerned.  Just as long as they let the people of South Dakota have their pro-life laws.  Toleration, federalism.  Live and let live.  We’re a big and very diverse country.  Why don’t we just leave each other alone?

I think a lot of people would like to be left alone.  By the government, especially.  A republican candidate should talk about that, about how we’re losing our privacy.  Rand Paul did it,  but somebody else needs to carry that torch.

Is an Article V Convention a pipe dream?  50 years ago when I got into politics we were all in on the Captive Nations Amendment.  The Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, were taken by Stalin in WW II, and we didn’t think this should be accepted.  This was 1965.  A quarter century later the Captive Nations were free and independent.

Big things do happen.