Miscellaneous

In calling for a “Second American Revolution,” the Heritage Foundation demonstrates its ignorance of the First. The revolution of 1776 overthrew the government of Great Britain in the 13 colonies, and substituted a new one, called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This was soon superseded, not overthrown, by the Constitution.

We are in the process of reviving, or resurrecting, that Constitution, not overthrowing it. We are not revolutionaries, we are conservatives. We are already making giant strides in our political and legal campaign, even as the pivotal election of 2024 is months away.

For 60 years we’ve been waiting for the courts to recognize “affirmative action” for what it is: state sanctioned racial discrimination. Finally, at long last, the Supreme Court has ruled that benign intentions cannot justify discriminating against any racial group.

For 50 years we waited for the great, and thoroughly unconstitutional exercise of eugenics and birth control known as Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and it finally happened.

For 40 years we’ve waited for the sprawling, invasive administrative state to be brought under control, and with the overturning of “Chevron deference” it’s finally happening.

None of these cases were, in the least sense, revolutionary. They were, in turn, a restoration of equal protection, judicial restraint, and the separation of power. They represent nothing more, or less, than a return to the principles set forth in the Constitution by the men who wrote it.

And now, all of a sudden and in one debate, all the lies from the media about Joe Biden have been exposed, and his sordid political career is coming to its humiliating conclusion. The media has disgraced itself covering for Biden, and its reputation has been destroyed, perhaps permanently. We can hope.

With big Republican victories across the country only four months way, it’s going to get even better.

All of us should be energized and motivated to do everything we can to make the November election a watershed, an historic turn in politics equivalent to 1932, the election that changed everything. For almost a hundred years now the federal government and the deep state have been accumulating power. Even the great Ronald Reagan, despite his best efforts, could not turn the tide. 2024 is our great opportunity to begin a reversal, and start returning power to the states, and the people.

The Framers of the Constitution gave the states, and the people, a mechanism to make such a reversal permanent. Article V allows the states, working in concert, the ability to amend the Constitution, and exercise control over the federal government which they created when they ratified the Constitution. This provision has never been used. Once the states exercise this power, the restoration of federalism which would result is the best hope of reconciling our deep political divisions.

One election, even one as significant and promising as 2024, won’t solve all our problems. We will remain a deeply divided country. There have always been deep divisions in a country as vast and diverse as the United States. Federalism allows such a nation to function successfully. Federalism means, in practice, live and let live. It means tolerance and diversity. It means let California be California, and let Alaska be Alaska. It’s how our government was originally designed to work.

The political alignment of 2024 is the most promising I’ve seen in my lifetime. We can’t let this opportunity go to waste.

Fritz Pettyjohn’s first venture in politics was working for Goldwater for President in 1964.

This was always going to be a good year for a Republican to run for office in Alaska. It just got way better.

At the head of the Democratic ticket, Joe Biden functions, barely, only with the active assistance of his wife. On his own, in a debate, he’s a disaster. It’s only going to get worse, but Jill Biden likes being the most powerful woman in the world, and she’s going to tough it out. The Democratic party, the Obamas and the Clintons, can all go to hell, as far as she’s concerned. Aren’t you glad you’re not a Democrat right now?

There are three things that large majorities of Alaskans, and Americans, right, left and center, can agree on. One is the need to stop the reckless deficit spending, and the ballooning national debt, which are causing inflation. Another is the need to impose term limits on members of Congress. The third is reform of a campaign finance system which corrupts Congress and gives incumbents an enormous advantage as they seek reelection.

None of these reforms will ever get through Congress. All will require the use of Article V to amend the Constitution. Short of revolution, it’s the only way any of them can happen.

First up will be fiscal reform. The need is urgent, and there may already be enough valid Article V resolutions on this subject to force Congress to call the first Article V Convention of States. When that Convention takes place, legislative leaders from all 50 states, Republican and Democrat, will be charged with crafting a solution which is satisfactory to a large supermajority of the country. Friendships will naturally form, relationships will be established.  When they have finished their business, it will only be natural for them to ask themselves,, “Is there anything else we can agree on?”

Term limits for Congress is a no brainer. Large, bipartisan majorities of voters want it, and opening up Congress to new blood will give some of these state legislators an opportunity to advance their own careers. Delegates to the Convention will be the leaders of their respective state legislatures and can agree among themselves that they will go home and pass the needed Article V resolutions for a 2nd Convention of States, to propose a term limits amendment.

Once that’s done, campaign finance reform should be the next item on the Article V agenda. Among the delegates to the 1787 Convention there was great distrust of the state legislatures, where hostility to a new federal Constitution was rampant. Madison, in particular, didn’t want to give these legislatures control over congressional elections. He feared that they would use that power to somehow hamstring the new Congress. So, in Article I, Sec. 4, he inserted a provision giving Congress the power to regulate the “Times, Places, and Manner” of its own elections.

This may have made sense at the time, but in modern practice it has turned out to be a serious problem. Congress has constructed campaign finance laws so that challengers to incumbent Congressmen are at a huge disadvantage. The easy and practical way to solve this problem is to amend Article I, Sec. 4 to give each state the authority to control its own campaign finance law. The state legislatures would control congressional campaign finance and can impose a new campaign finance regime which would result in a more level playing field and reduce endemic corruption. Each state will have its own law. Citizen initiatives could be used to institute campaign finance restrictions which legislatures refuse to pass. The laws of Alaska will be quite different from the laws of New York, which is fine. It’s called federalism, and it works. Delegates to a 3rd Convention of States, dealing with campaign finance, would be empowering themselves, at the expense of Congress. From their perspective, what’s not to like?

At this point such talk is mere speculation.  But what is beyond doubt is that the first use of Article V in almost 240 years will begin a process of reviving federalism, a bedrock constitutional principle which has eroded over time, as the federal government has amassed more and more power, at the expense of the states.  It would be a concrete demonstration of the fact that, ultimately, the states, acting collectively, can control the federal government.

When state legislators pass Article V resolutions, they are attempting to return political power to their states, and themselves, at the expense of Congress and the federal government. Returning power to the states, and the people, from a bloated and dysfunctional federal government is good policy, and good politics. It’s an idea whose time has come.  If and when it happens, it would be historic, a watershed, 

In 1988 Rep. Fritz Pettyjohn introduced HJR 54, an Article V resolution calling for the limitation of congressional terms.  He blogs at ReaganProject.com.

(This originally appeared in Must Read Alaska)

The replacement, or supersession, of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution was done in an orderly and lawful manner. The delegates to the Annapolis Convention of 1786 requested that the Confederation Congress call a Constitutional Convention in May of 1787, to be held in Philadelphia. The Congress acceded to the request and called the convention.

On September 17, 1787, after finishing drafting the proposed Constitution, the Convention unanimously adopted a Resolution calling for it to be submitted to the Confederation Congress, and recommended that that Congress, in turn, submit the proposal to state conventions for their assent and ratification. The Convention of 1787 did not believe it had the standing to submit their proposal to the states for their consideration. Only Congress had that authority.

Likewise, a Convention of States, called by the Congress pursuant to Article V, would lack the authority to submit their proposal to the States. Only Congress has that power, and the power to determine the method of ratification. To argue the contrary is to ignore clear historical precedent.

The Confederation Congress chose to follow the recommendations of the Convention. It was not obligated to do so.

So if a Convention of States, called pursuant to Article V, were to ignore limitations on its authority, as stated in the call of the Convention, Congress would have the power to refuse to submit it to the states for ratification.

Congress has the power to prevent the dreaded “runaway”.