Is Speaker Howell the next James Madison?
By JR Hoeft | Monday, January 4th, 2010 | PolicyIn this era of ever expanding government, socialized health care, bailouts of the auto industry and banking, and energy giveaways to international competitors, a pretty reasoned argument can be made that the original intent of our Constitutional framers is no longer being met.
When the Articles of Confederation no longer became a viable option for our fledgling federal government, a convention was called amongst the states to draft a new document that would further centralize power with the national government (the Articles were having a difficult time regulating interstate commerce, levying taxes, and raising and maintaining an armed service to mitigate insurrections and provide for the common defense). After much deliberation, debate, and discussion, ultimately, our U.S. Constitution was created and ratified.
Fast forward to today.
Bearing Drift has learned that Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, William Howell, has been working with former U.S. Attorney General and member of the Iraq Study Group, Ed Messe, to explore the possibility of holding another constitutional convention – this time to explicitly enumerate what rights states might have to check currently unchecked federal power.
Bearing Drift has a query into the Speaker that, to this point, remains unanswered as to how far he actually wants to take this and whether or not this is a serious proposal or merely an idea.
Article V of the Constitution lays out the requirements for the states to call for amending the document vice the generally practiced method of Congress proposing the amendments to be later ratified by the states. According to the Constitution, the legislatures of two-thirds of the States must call for a convention, with three-quarters of the state legislatures or conventions then ratifying the changes (which is also the norm for congressional amendments).
Originally, James Madison of Virginia proposed the Bill of Rights (the Constitution’s first ten amendments), but did so via the Congress. It was Virginia that was the tenth state to ratify the amendments, bringing the number over three-quarters, in 1791.
The amendments were brought by anti-Federalists who felt that the Constitution as written did not provide enough protections from unfettered national power. They were modeled after George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted in 1776.
One of the amendments provided is the 10th which says:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It is not unprecedented for the Constitution to be amended, nor did the framers think it would remain unchanged.
“The older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment and pay more respect to the judgment of others,” said Benjamin Franklin, one of the framers.
Clearly he saw that there would be times when the document might have to be refined.
Is this one of those times? Are the states ready to take the lead at making any changes? And, is Speaker Howell ready to lead that charge?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
22 Responses to "Is Speaker Howell the next James Madison?"
Seems to me the calls for a Constitutional Convention did not gain traction until the Republicans fell out of power.
I am not in favor of a Constitutional Convention. What would be the results? I shudder to think what might happen. Perhaps you will get what you want out of such a convention, but perhaps the opposition’s viewpoint will snowball and you will get rolled over.
If you have a problem with some specific interpretation of the Constitution, this can be dealt with through the amendment process. An amendment could make it clear how the Supreme Court MUST rule. I am open to arguments for very specific amendments, however wiping the slate clean on over 200 years of success and starting completely over I am 100% opposed.
I think that this is largely political opportunism and it worries me that Howell, the guy who broke down and gave Tim Kaine his only win of his administration by supporting the smoking ban, is somehow acting like a limited government conservative now. But hey, you take what you can get!
LD,
Re-read the post…it does not state that Howell is proposing re-drafting the U.S. Constitution, but is calling for a convention to have an amendment(s)added to curtail Federal intrusion into states rights…which in my opinion is already stated in the 10th amendment…but has not been used or enforced by the states nor S.C.
LD – this is one of those times you should think before you type. The post is pretty clear: Howell is seeking the alternative method of amending the Constitution where the lead is taken by the states and not the Congress, as Article V permits.
J.M.-there’s not provision for a “limited Constitutional convention.” Once you call a convention, the whole constitution is open for change. That wouldn’t be a good thing.
The U.S. Constitution established pretty close to as perfect a system of government as humans can get. When it has been found to be lacking, it’s been amended.
We aren’t a serious enough people anymore to write a new Constitution, as evidenced by the silliness on both sides of the aisle over as simple a thing as health care reform.
Article V
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.
Steve, here is Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It does not say anything about the contstitution being open to complete overhaul at a convention. It states that the Congress may propose and ratify amendments as well as 2/3 of the states may call a convention to add amendments (not draft a new constitution) to the constitution.
JM: If it’s open to amendments, then it’s ALL open to amendments. I don’t see any langauge there limiting what can be done at a Constitutional Convention. It says the convention can propose amendments. I predict a new constitutional convention would be swamped with amendments, so of which would repeal important sections of the bill of rights in the name of “national security” or “protecting the lives of the unborn” or “protecting the environment” etc. No thanks.
your also missing that it would require 3/4 of the states to ratify any given ammendments from the convention… considering this very large super majority requirment, it is unlikly that any fringe or weird stuff would be able to be passed. Its highly unlikely that the whole constitution would be able to be scrapped/ rewritten.
And its also likely that if there were a convention, the major changes would become THE political issue durring state elections and would be very open and prevelant in the public debate.
besides, we don’t even listen to the constitution we currently have… the one we really have is closer to this:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/28/a-new-deal-constitution/
Its not like they are going to call for a convention to add ambiguous amendments – the call for a convention would have to specify what amendments are going to be voted on and would not allow amendments to be offered from the floor (ala Robert’s Rules of Order). It could and would be very specific.
I don’t think your really grasping the magnatude of a convention either. 30 state legislatures would have to approve the amendment(s) being proposed at the convention, then have an actual convention where delegates from ALL 50 states would debate and vote on the pre-approved amendment and then once approved, 38 state legislatures by a specific date and year would have to vote to ratify the approved amendments to actually amend the U.S. Constitution. The process is arduous at best. The founders made it this difficult, so that scenerios in which you are concerned with happening, actually would not. So your concern of willy-nilly amendments being introduced and approved, thus majorily changing how our government operates is unwarrented.
You stated in your previous post that the whole Constitution would be open to being changed and lamented that we are not a society that could handle writing a “new” constitution and I was pointing out that would not be the case (only amendments can be adopted and changed, not the actual creation of our government – Articles I – VII) as spelled out in Article V.
Okay, let’s assume you’re right (I’m not convinced) that the convention will stick to the purpose that it’s called for. Why do we need it? What is so wrong with the Constitution that it requires this method to fix rather than the more traditional method?
To bolster the 10th Amendment?
Why bother? Just repeal the 10th, it’s irrelevant and obsolete.
We are no longer and nation formed by the joining of sovereign states to which citizens owe their first loyalty, and we haven’t been for some times.
Modern Americans are citizens of the United States and merely residents of the various states.
Most of us will reside in more than one state during our lifetimes.
“States rights” are the rallying cry that always used when conservative forces in the country want to limit INDIVIDUAL rights.
Where in the Constitution does it define that Roberts Rules will reign in the Constitutional Convention? Would not a majority vote of those in attendance dictate under which rules they operate?
There are some very slim limits on what the Convention could and could not change. Other then the limits imposed, the sky is wide open. I will grant that these changes would not be automatic, that then the changes must be ratified. But we would be back to simple majorities in 3/4′s of the states approving the proposals and then they would be carved in stone.
Please educate me. If a Constitutional Convention was called, would each of the states have equal representation or would representation be based on population? This is new ground we are covering and the Constitution is not clear about this.
I believe that in a Convention the states would each have one vote – just as in the original, that is the nature of conventions. Remember that it is the STATES, not the population that would call for this. As for not needing one – this should have been done a LONG time ago, if Jefferson were still alive he would have been writing new Declarations of Indepence since 1900. The causes of America’s first fight for liberty look like childs play compared to the current socialist majority.
Govgirl,
So you would oppose that socialistic Social Security system allowed for under our current interpretations?
OK, Virginia gets one vote. As a citizen of Virginia, I vote no to the Constitutional Convention. I hope my vote counts.
GovGirl,
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, the first thing he’d do would be to horsewhip you and George Allen and every other apologist for the monied elite who’d been misusing his name for the last 25 years.Jefferson was FOR the common man, he’d want him to have health care and Social Security. And, he was a genius, so it wouldn’t be too hard for him to see through the “smaller govt.” rhetoric that proponents of the corporate/national security state use to cloak their true intentions. He was too smart to fall for the Tea Party dodge.
right steve, the man who said this would want government run healthcare forced and mandated upon us by the Federal government:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated” -Jefferson 1798
Your comment is also telling of the leftistist mind… because you actually think there is such a thing as the “common man” as if everyone is some homonginous glob who has all the same desires and needs. And you view society as some great struggle between these massive groups rather than a vast collection of varying individuals.
But Re Jefferson, though they had disagreements, the Founders were in large classically liberal and saught to limit the powers of government. If this were not so then they would have nevwer created a constitution that deliniated powers. If they had intened the federal government to have endless ability in “providing for the general welfare” (also note that the concept of “general” and “welfare” was different then) than a constituion would have just been written that sets up the structure of government and would not mention its powers. The Founders were very much aware of the concept of the parlimentary supremacy and they chose not to institute it. How about we listen to the guy who actually wrote the Constitution:
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one …” -James Madison
“With respect to the two words ’general welfare,‘ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison
why can’t leftists, progressives, liberals, what ever they want to call themselves just admit they have no desire to want to follow the constitution? Its ok for you to say that. The founders realized it would need to be changed hence the amendment process. At least the Progressives of the early 20th century were more honest about their disregard for the constitution being quaint. Even the term “progressive” originates from the idea that we had progressed beyond the need for the constitution
Steve – SERIOUSLY, have you ever READ a history book? Even the worst of them don’t mess things up that badly. Thomas Jefferson OPPOSED the US Constitution because he believed it gave too much power to the federal government – yes that’s right, to much power to the federal government in 1787, he would be beside himself today. Jefferson believed in individuals doing for THEMSELVES, not government doing for them. I do not see health care as a natural right listed in the Declaration, what I do see is that the PURPOSE of government is to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness, and if it should beceome destructive to this end (and who with half a brain does not see our liberty being stripped away by the bucket load) it is the right of the people to ALTER OR ABOLISH it and to institute a new one. He later goes on to say that it is not only their right but their duty to do this, your ignorance of this basic reading of the Declaration of Independence (minus any other work) is truly terrifying.
But what do you do when the majority of citizens demand health care? What do you do if you allow the problem to fester until two thirds demand health care?
Will you sit back on your heels until the revolution happens?
OK, let’s not do anything about health care today. Let us just wait until the overwhelming majority start beating the drums and demonstrating. Changes will happen. They might not come today, but one does not need a crystal ball to predict that changes are going to come about.
Change is coming. If not today, then tomorrow. Every person has the right to vote and they do not need to take up arms to provide the changes.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would have to say about that.
I am pretty sure that no one was suggesting that people take up arms – my point was specifically addressing the complete disregard for the work of Jefferson by claiming he would support this nonsense. If I am not mistaken, this thread is about the call for a Constitutional convention – NOT a call to armed rebellion. Also David, NO ONE is suggesting that nothing be done, that is a figment of liberal imagination dreamed up to provide a defense of the demolition of liberty.
I think it’s great that Speaker Howell is exploring this. Two things that made the biggest impression on me about Speaker Howell were his knowledge of, and interest in, Virginia and United States history, and how he always spoke respectfully to, and about, his wife (I guess the second one doesn’t relate to this topic very much!). It can’t hurt to look into what he is proposing~
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.