Thursday, April 23, 2009

Reining In Leviathan by Amendment

“We no longer have sovereign states,” I told my friend when he mentioned that term in conversation. “We fought a war over that,” I told him. “When the dust settled, we had redefined our system of government so that we now have a central authority with vassal states rather than sovereign states with a central power that manages limited common concerns.” And it has only become more centrally focused and sprawling since then.

Constitutional law professor Randy Barnett thinks it’s time to take the Constitution back to its original meaning (plus most amendments). The way to do that, argues Barnett in this WSJ op-ed, is through a new constitutional amendment that “would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people.”

Barnett’s article is a reduction of arguments made in part of his 2003 book Restoring the Lost Constitution. (You can read part of the book online at this Google Books link.) In his 2000 book The Structure of Liberty, Barnett promotes the idea of legal libertarianism. He explains individual rights and our duties to each other as defined by natural law and lays out the reasoning behind a properly limited government.

Trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit federal power would be a nearly insurmountable task. After all, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to vote to limit their own power. Rarely has there been an instance of a politician actively working to reduce his own power, let alone a large group of politicians doing so. In general, politicians will always seek to limit their own accountability but will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving up the least scintilla of power.

But the reality is that the collective number of state politicians vastly outnumbers that of federal politicians. Barnett suggests that states could do much as they did when promoting the 17th Amendment. Back then enough states petitioned for a constitutional convention over the issue of direct election of senators (as allowed by Constitution Article V) that Congress acquiesced, rather than risk a “runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.”

Would states actually petition for a constitutional convention in this day and age? Quite a number have passed toothless resolutions reaffirming their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendments. But many states are so beholden to the federal gravy train that it is difficult to imagine them threatening that revenue stream.

Still, these are unusual times. “States,” claims Barnett, “have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people.” Well, nothing but a load of cash with strings tied to it. Those strings, ladies and gentlemen, translate into jobs that employ real people like your neighbors and mine.

You can argue until you’re blue in the face that cutting the federal apron strings would ultimately lead to better, more productive jobs, but libertarians knows that it’s very difficult to get people to buy that line. People losing jobs makes the news big time. Job creation by entrepreneurial businesses makes small time news if it makes the news at all. Job losses are very real while promises of future jobs are ethereal. Little will turn a feisty politician into a lap dog quicker than threatening to pin job losses on him.

Barnett’s suggested language for a Federalism Amendment is somewhat bold. On first reading, I figured that it would cause a significant sea change in the way things currently work in the U.S. On second reading, I think that it would result in sweeping changes, but not quite as broad as I first imagined.

Perhaps the greatest change Barnett is proposing is one he discusses rather lightly: the repeal of the 16th Amendment. Federal income tax would go away five years after the Federalism Amendment was ratified. “Congress,” explains Barnett, “could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax.”

Without using the actual words, Barnett is proposing replacing the federal income tax with the FairTax, a national sales tax system (but perhaps without the revenue neutrality element). Doing so, claims Barnett, “would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code.” Yes, but would it only be replaced by another costly tax code? There are legitimate concerns about the FairTax from various perspectives (see here and here for example). Much debate would be needed on this issue.

Another of Barnett’s provisions would reign in a judiciary that has become quite comfortable with legislating from the bench and applying supposedly modern nuance to the language of the Constitution. This provision states (in part), “The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.”

I have often argued that we follow this same precedent with respect to every other legal document in the nation. How is it that we fail to do so with respect to our most important legal contract? Members of the judiciary would go nuts over this provision. They would say that it is unworkable. But it would re-enthrone the amendment process outlined in Article V as the only way to bring the Constitution up to date. Changes would require a general national consensus rather than a ruling by the majority of an elite few.

While Barnett’s proposal is intriguing, he seems to assume that most Americans would welcome something like the Federalism Amendment. I’m not at all sure that is the case. For one thing, there is a nearly dogmatic pursuit of uniformity that runs through many facets of society. In our increasingly interconnected world, there is a decreasing level of tolerance for diversity in state and local policy. It’s just too darn inconvenient for some people.

Another significant issue is that all Americans are either currently financially beholden to the federal government or will be so in the future. Barnett suggests that his amendment would get rid of most federal wealth transfers, including Social Security. Although the amendment would grandfather everyone living into Social Security, few want to consider relegating future generations of Americans to the poverty situation in which many elderly found themselves in the days before Social Security.

Trying to sell such a plan at a time when people have seen their 401k balances evaporate simply isn’t going to fly. Besides, most Americans can’t believe that Social Security will eventually become insolvent. How can it be that we can’t afford to bolster Social Security, they wonder, when we can afford to throw around trillions of dollars of ‘stimulus’ money? You can lecture people about Social Security being a pension plan with a limited balance, but too many shenanigans have occurred for people to believe that anymore.

At any rate, a Federalism Amendment would have to be carefully worded, since experience shows that the potential for mischief in constitutional language is substantial. Could a Federalism Amendment be something that conservatives could get behind, as Barnett suggests? That’s quite possible. But unless it appeals to a much broader segment of the population it will be relegated to permanent fringe status.

8 comments:

NetBizSavvy said...

"Success is almost totally dependent upon drive and persistence. The extra energy required to make another effort or try another approach is the secret of winning."

Bill Walker said...

I suggest reading:http://www.nolanchart.com/authors/articles/article.php?ArticleID=6334 before making up your mind on this proposal as it discusses several errors of fact on the part of Mr. Barnett.

Also you should go to www.foavc.org and read the 750 applications from all 50 states for an Article V Convention. The repeal of the 16th Amendment has been requested by 39 states, one more than needed for ratification.
Congress must call a convention if 34 states apply for a convention call.

Democracy Lover said...

Well, I guess this idea will be relegated to the permanent fringe status where it is today. The problem with government in the US is not that states or individuals don't have sufficient rights or that the income tax is inherently wrong. The problem is that our government is controlled by big money interests - multi-national corporations and huge international banks. That's why the people are getting screwed.

What we need to do is pass a Constitutional amendment stating that the rights enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments apply to individual human beings who are citizens of the United States only. Once corporations are stripped of their unconstitutional "personhood", we can demand that they stay out of the political process and the political debate and take our country back.

I however, fully support the idea of secession. Lincoln made a big mistake by challenging the secession of the South in the 19th century and if Texas and a few other states want to leave, let them. The rest of us would be better off without them.

Reach Upward said...

re NetBizSavvy: huh? Relevance?

re Bill Walker: Thanks for the link to your article and the link to Friends of the Article V Convention. You have clearly done a lot more research, thinking, and acting on this than the vast majority of us. Another interesting discussion of whether the standard for a constitutional convention has already been met can be found at lessig.org.

Still, I think that getting a constitutional convention off the ground in the face of an intransigent congress would require a very broad groundswell of support all at the same time, regardless of the legal argument that we should already be holding a convention. If such a convention were to take place, I doubt it would have the luxury of keeping proceedings secret, as did the 1787 convention. Instead, every moment would be broadcast in gory detail. It would be the greatest political spectacle of the century and would very likely produce a vastly different outcome than did the 1787 convention.

re Democracy Lover: We have a serious problem when the public is made to bear the risk tied to private profit through legally recognized entities. This amounts to taxation, as the public will bear the cost through taxation at some point. Such injustice is not mitigated by the fact that our properly elected officials voted in favor of it.

Democracy Lover said...

Corporations have been socializing risk and privatizing reward for a long time in this country. The reason they can get away with it is because they own the government. The only way we can stop this is to regain control of the government and relegate the private risk takers to the private sector where they belong.

designated conservative said...

The Obamacized Democrat Congressional leadership is out-of-control, and too many of our Republican leaders are helping things along:

http://dcon2012.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/the-unintended-consequences-of-senator-hatchs-missionary-experience/

http://dcon2012.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/tell-congress-support-hr-450-the-enumerated-powers-act/

Democracy Lover said...

There is little real difference between the "leadership" of the two political parties. They both are staunch defenders of the status quo which includes runaway military spending, shifting the tax burden to the middle and working class, and transferring the nation's wealth to the big banks as quickly as possible. Their number one priority is getting into power or staying in power.

There are some differences on the so-called cultural issues but those are mainly because they believe those issues can be used to fool people into voting for them.

Reach Upward said...

"Their number one priority is getting into power or staying in power."


This is perhaps the most accurate definition of a politician that I have seen.