Constitutional Amendment | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Let us hope that the Supremes (the court, not the singing group) come down on the right side (which according to numerous polls, is also considered to be the "correct" side by most Americans) of the Obamacare argument they are hearing this week (3/26-28/12).

    The Reid Senate in its headlong rush to push the Obamacare legislation through in a hurry (perhaps before too many folks learned about the "Louisiana Purchase", "Cornhusker Kickback", and other "goodies" that were promised various legislators to secure their vote) seems to have failed to include a "severability clause" in the legislation. A severability clause, in effect, says that if a part of this legislation is found to be "lacking", the remainder of the bill (law) shall never-the-less remain in effect. This clause is found on all manner of contracts. It is quite common. Let us hope that if the Supremes do find a portion of the law unconstitutional, they will also find that, for lack of a severability clause, all the rest of the legislation becomes inoperative.

    Regardless of how all that comes out, there is something that needs attention before things go too much farther.

    That would be the increasing Congressional reliance on "General Welfare" and the "Commerce Clause" as justification for doing a lot of the questionable things they do - the most egregious example of which is Obamacare. The meaning of those clauses have been "stretched" by the congress to a ridiculous degree. The Obamacare case will either tell us that the congress has gone too far - or find that what they have enacted is acceptable. Either way, it is not likely that the Court will give us any clear parameters as to how much "stretch" is allowable (as usual). It's like the pornography arguments (of many years ago) and the statement by one of the Justices (can't remember which one it was) when asked for a definition of pornography said something to the effect that "I'll recognize it when I see it."

    It is clearly time to place some parameters (limits) on the definition of "General Welfare" and the "Commerce Clause" so as to severely limit further abuse and misuse by either the Prez or the Congress - any Congress of any persuasion. We really have only two choices at this point. We either "put a fence" around General Welfare and the Commerce Clause or we allow the defacto erosion of the Tenth Amendment to continue. We badly need a constitutional amendment that puts some rather severe limits on the use of those open ended clauses to justify virtually anything the congress wants to do. Otherwise, the tenth amendment is a "goner".

    In case you hadn't looked at Article V of our constitution lately, it provides that the Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary shall propose amendments to our constitution. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen for the change I'm suggesting because what it would do is restrain Congress from continuing to overstep their authority. However, Article V also provides that upon the application of two thirds of the States, Congress is required to call a Convention for proposing amendments. That means 34 states would have to support holding such a convention. When you consider that 28 states are working together to get Obamacare declared un-constitutional, it would only take 6 more states to require a convention to help rein in a seemingly out of control congress and preserve the tenth amendment and the States Rights protections guaranteed there.

    Once the amendment is drafted, it would take three fourths of the states to ratify it. That would be 38 - only four more than required to call the Convention. It is inconceivable that very many states would be willing to allow their sovereignty to continue to be usurped by the central government. It may take several years to get it done, but if we don't start, we will never get it done.

    I do not believe that a Congressional Convention has ever been called at the behest of the states, but let's face it, we've never had as great a need to rein in an seemingly out of control Prez (Wilson and FDR excepted) and Congress. (That would be the Pelosi/Reid congress in case you were wondering.)

    It seems fairly clear that in the eyes of the current administration that the anointed one is allowed to do virtually anything he desires (unless, of course, the Russians are involved or the voting public may not like it, in which case it needs to wait until after he is re-elected in November. Bite your tongue!!). So what has he done that seems somewhat untoward?? How about non-recess, recess appointments?? How about more Czars that anyone can keep track of?? How about crony capitalism where the biggest campaign contributors and bundlers get government handouts and loan guarantees pretty much regardless of the viability of the project. How about the NLRB trying to dictate where Boeing can or cannot build a new factory?? How about a lot of other things?? These things he did knowing full well that he will be faced with another election. Imagine what it will be like if he isn't faced with another election. That is really scary. We need to be able to bring these kinds of affronts to our Constitution and the American public to a screeching halt!! And the surest way, it seems to me, would be with a constitutional amendment that gets rid of "General Welfare" and the "Commerce Clause" as justifications for whatever anyone in congress wants to do and reins in the Prez a bit.. It is not only the Congress who needs to be reigned in, the Prez needs a very large dose of the same medicine.

    By the way, what do you suppose "After the election I will have more flexibility." means?? There are quite a few folks with whom I have spoken who certainly hope he will have more flexibility after the election - a lot more!!. If we succeed in sending him back home (would that be Chicago or Hawaii??), he will have plenty of flexibility to do whatever he likes. Surely Job 1 will be the Obama Presidential Library. (Do you suppose it will turn into another of his "shovel ready" projects - in which case we may never see it completed??). It will be interesting to see if it gets built in Illinois or Hawaii (or maybe Indonesia). In any case, there seem to be a lot of folks working hard to make that happen. More power to them!!

    D'ya think??