|
| |
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Isn't this amendment unconstitutional?
A. As a matter of fact, it is. But we could say that about almost any of the 27
amendments already made to the Constitution. Article VI of the US Constitution
says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This amendment would allow
the people of the states to say, "no" to an act of the Federal Government. It
does not give them the authority to make national laws, nor treaties, nor impose
their will on other states. It only allows them to negate an act of the Federal
Government after it has happened. If this amendment were in effect, the concept
of the "supreme Law of the Land" would have limits.
Q. Doesn’t this undermine the authority and credibility of the United States
Government?
A. Not necessarily. If our leaders are indeed leaders who educate and convince
the people of the states that the laws and treaties they pass are good for the
country, the people are unlikely to exercise their authority under this
amendment. However, if we have a rogue leader or group of leaders able to issue
regulations, rulings, or orders affecting one or more states for the worse,
those states would have the ability to say, "no."
Q. You are talking about states rights, doesn’t the 10th Amendment provide for
the states?
A. The 10th Amendment states, "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." Unfortunately, the Constitution does not
provide any implementing language for this amendment. Judicial actions, in
particular, have repeatedly refused the states the right to establish laws on
matters not addressed in the Constitution. This amendment would provide that
implementing language.
Q. Why not just replace politicians who pass bad laws?
A. As a people, we have done that in the past. Unfortunately, the laws
politicians implement are rarely repealed. Who runs for president or Congress on
a platform of repealing old laws? Its not a winner. Judges who rule against the
will of the people are beyond reach of the voter. The only way to stop the
destructive actions of these people is to allow the voter to say, No!
Q. Isn’t this a veiled attempt to impose a "religious rule" on the American
public?
A. Not at all. This amendment is available to all political and religious
persuasions. It truly empowers the people and only the people. It does not tear
down the courts, legislature, or executive branches. It establishes another
means of accountability and places it firmly in the hands of the people by
allowing them to say with final authority, "No, not in my backyard." A liberal
state could say no to a conservative edict just as easily as a conservative
state could say no to a liberal edict.
Q. Couldn’t this amendment result in dismantling current US law?
A. Yes, but only very slowly – one law at a time and one state at a time.
Further, one must consider that not all the referenda considered by the states
will pass. This amendment will encourage the best democracy has to offer –
engaging the governed in the debate on the most controversial edicts of the
Federal Government.
Initiating a statewide public referendum is no small task. States require
collection of a substantial number of signatures just to put the issue on a
ballot. Once on the ballot, getting enough votes to pass is also a monumental
task. So, this is not something that can be used frivolously. The Tenth
Amendment lies dormant as the Federal Government appropriates more and more
power. Here is a mechanism whereby the people can say enough, one state at a
time, and once again assume control of a government that is supposed to be "Of
the people, by the people, and for the people."
Q. Why would we need elected and appointed officials?
A. To fulfill the duties specified in the Constitution.
Q. How could a state reverse its decision?
A. By a second referendum.
Q. Could not this amendment take away, say, the right to vote for women and
blacks?
A. No for two reasons. First, these rights are specifically written into the
Constitution and, second, it is unlikely any state could rally more than half
its voters to ratify such an action.
Q. What about states that don't allow citizen initiated referenda?
A. Those states could not use this amendment until their laws allowed for such
referenda.
Q. How could you possibly get a constitutional amendment passed?
A. Granted this is an uphill battle. But, as the Republican revolution in the
'90's demonstrated, even uphill battles can be won. The question is, are the
people convinced this would be to their benefit? If it is, they can make it
happen.
|
