The Liberty Amendments Part 4

CHAPTER ELEVEN.

AN AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE VOTE.

SECTION 1: Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification doc.u.ments demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

SECTION 2: Provisions shall be made by the state legislatures to provide such citizenship-designated photographic identification doc.u.ments at no cost to individuals unable to afford fees a.s.sociated with acquiring such doc.u.ments.

SECTION 3: Early voting in any general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall not be held more than thirty calendar days prior to the national day of election except for active-duty military personnel, for whom early voting shall not commence more than forty-five calendar days prior to the national day of election.

SECTION 4: Where registration and/or voting is not in person but by mail, citizens must submit an approved citizen-designated photo identification and other reliable information to state election officials to register to vote and request ballots for voting, no later than forty-five calendar days before the primary or general elections for President, Vice President, or members of Congress. Registration forms and ballots must be returned and signed by the voter and must either be mailed or hand-delivered by the voter to state election officials. If delivered by a third party, the voter must provide written authorization for the person making the delivery and the third party must sign a statement certifying that he did not unduly influence the voter's decisions.

SECTION 5: Electronic or other technology-based voting systems, for purposes of registering and voting in national elections, are proscribed unless a reliable identification and secure voting regimen is established by the state legislature.

ALTHOUGH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT does not involve systemic const.i.tutional reform, as do the other proposed amendments, it addresses the sanct.i.ty of the voting franchise in federal elections, which has become increasingly confusing and unreliable. And like the other proposed amendments, this one is intended to enhance self-government.

The one mantra recited reflexively whenever the topic of voter fraud comes up is that there is no such thing as voter fraud in the United States. It just does not exist, so there is simply no need for "draconian" measures like requiring voters to present a state-issued photo identification-a valid driver's license, pa.s.sport, or equivalent form of ID-in order to vote. Beyond a few "isolated" examples of individuals misbehaving, it is said that voter fraud does not occur.

This argument was addressed directly by Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, later upheld by the Supreme Court. Posner explained that we are dealing with ". . . the form of voting fraud in which a person shows up at the polls claiming to be someone else-someone who has left the district, or died, too recently to have been removed from the list of registered voters, or someone who has not voted yet on election day. Without requiring a photo ID, there is little if any chance of preventing this kind of fraud because busy poll workers are unlikely to scrutinize signatures carefully and argue with people who deny having forged someone else's signature."1 Posner added, ". . . the absence of prosecutions is explained by the endemic underenforcement of minor criminal laws (minor as they appear to the public and prosecutors, at all events) and by the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling place, gives a name that is not his own, votes, and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name, and if someone did remember it, what would he do with the information?" He concluded, "One response [to voting fraud], which has a parallel to littering, another crime the perpetrators of which are almost impossible to catch, would be to impose a very severe criminal penalty for voting fraud. Another, however, is to take preventive action . . . by requiring a photo ID."2 And what of the limited number of news reports of voter fraud? Posner pointed out, "[T]hat lacuna may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists' and other investigators' choice of scandals to investigate."3 Incidents of in-person and other kinds of voter fraud also grow in complexity with each succeeding election cycle. Of course, there are conscientious citizens who try to ensure the integrity of our electoral infrastructure, but there are also self-interested political activists who are bent on adulterating the voting processes to the point where illicit activities like selling one's vote to the highest bidder, encouraging illegal aliens to register and vote-often multiple times in a single election-and tampering with absentee ballots are all too easily accomplished.

Not surprisingly, the catalysts for growing opportunities for electoral abuse are recently enacted federal laws designed to "reform" the processes by which we elect our leaders: * Early voting-sometimes several days, weeks, and even months before election day.

* Same-day voter registration.

* Online voter registration.

* "Motor voter" registration (where an applicant for a new or renewed driver's license is automatically offered the opportunity to register to vote).

* Ballots published in non-English native and foreign languages.

* Provisional ballots.

While some of these measures have served to turn out new qualified voters, there have also been unadvertised consequences that are causing an increasing number of people to question the integrity of the voting process. And there is some talk of elections in the not-too-distant future taking place entirely online, with voters using smartphones, tablets, Internet-connected televisions, laptops, and desktop PCs to cast ballots.

This troubling electoral landscape has caused several states to enact, or consider enacting, statutes requiring voters to produce state-issued photo ID cards, primarily driver's licenses, as proof of citizenship to register to vote and vote in primaries and general elections. These laws are both eminently reasonable and very important tools in protecting the inst.i.tutional credibility of the representative parts of government. Undermine the public's faith in the voting process, the single way in which the people can express directly their collective will, and you destabilize what is left of the republican enterprise.

And make no mistake, the public's faith has been shaken. According to an April 2012 Rasmussen poll, two out of three American voters surveyed believed that voter fraud is a serious problem. "Many think that people who should not be allowed to vote will actually be able to cast ballots," Rasmussen explained. The survey also found that 82 percent of those questioned believed that requiring a photo ID as a condition of voting was a good idea. And 73 percent rejected the notion that requiring a photo ID would discriminate against minorities. Twenty-four percent of those surveyed also said that they were not confident that their own vote would be counted.4 The Supreme Court has already weighed in on voter ID requirements, concluding they are a reasonable solution to voter integrity concerns.5 Regulations imposing only ordinary burdens, such as those requiring a "nominal effort" by all voters, are not severe.

Several states are enacting laws requiring that voters present one of several acceptable photo IDs. These laws are patterned after an Indiana photo identification law that the Court has already upheld as a "generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation" with reasonable burdens.6 Requiring a photo ID to vote is neither an onerous nor a unique requirement in the twenty-first century. Identification is required to obtain a driver's license and pa.s.sport; buy alcohol or cigarettes; apply for food stamps, unemployment, and various forms of welfare; open a bank account; cash a check; purchase a firearm; lease an apartment; rent a car; secure a marriage license; clear airport security; enter most federal buildings-and even meet the president or vice president in person. Yet, when it comes to state efforts to ensure the integrity of the electoral process through modest voter identification laws, there are howls of protest from certain political activists and insincere public officials. Merely requiring an individual to establish eligibility for voting is portrayed as the resurrection of Jim Crow laws.7 For example, Jesse Jackson declared, "The voter ID is the new Civil War battle all over the nation."8 Thus, for Jackson, identifying yourself as a citizen before voting is akin to the war that ended slavery. More troubling than Jackson's demagoguery is the deceitfulness of the nation's top law enforcement official. The attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder, used incendiary terms to critique the Texas voter ID law in a speech to the National a.s.sociation for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP): "Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them and some would struggle to pay for the doc.u.ments they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes."9 Holder felt no urgency to offer any substantive information about exactly how many individuals would be inconvenienced by a photo ID requirement, or how those same individuals manage to function in their daily lives without a photo ID right now. Moreover, the irony was that the attendees of the speech had been asked to present identification before entering.10 As attorney general, Holder should be more concerned than most about the integrity of the nation's voting system and the real and potential fraud that undermines it.

After a long history of civil rights struggles and legal battles to overcome real and intended sanctioned obstacles to voting, it would seem elemental that voting methodologies and processes that do not adequately protect the sanct.i.ty of the hard-won franchise warrant universal outrage. Extremist histrionics aside, many states are recognizing that the single most effective, straightforward, and practical way to discourage several types of voter fraud is to require a photo ID to establish ident.i.ty. Unfortunately, in every state where this requirement has been enacted, opposition to these measures has been well organized, vitriolic, and dishonest. The contrived responses to recent reform efforts in Pennsylvania and Arizona are typical.

In Pennsylvania, the legislature concluded that the voters lacked confidence in the integrity of that commonwealth's electoral system. In 2012, it enacted a law requiring individuals to present a state-issued photo ID in order to vote.11 Those without a photo ID would be issued a free ID by the state upon sufficient demonstration of ident.i.ty and residency, which should have blunted complaints about affordability. Opposition to the bill was fierce, dominated by shameful claims of bigotry and racism, and efforts to create a false record of voter suppression.

Led by the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP, voter ID opponents claimed that the Pennsylvania law was intended to "suppress voting by groups that typically vote Democratic and disproportionately lack official ID."12 They also claimed that the photo ID requirement is no different from a poll tax, now a common refrain. An NAACP attorney alleged that the Pennsylvania voter ID law was designed to disqualify "at the low end" 100,000 to 500,000 voters.13 Still, the legislature pa.s.sed the bill, which the governor signed into law. Despite the alarmist rhetoric and brazen claims that hundreds of thousands of voters would be disenfranchised, the plaintiffs were unable to produce a single individual who would be prevented from voting under the new law.14 A Pennsylvania trial court concluded that the voter ID law was a modest, generally applicable, nondiscriminatory adjustment to Pennsylvania's voter qualifications, fully consistent with the Pennsylvania Const.i.tution.15 After the intervention of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, implementation of the law was delayed until after the 2012 presidential election. Administrative issues were the basis for delay rather than any substantive conclusion that the law is improper.16 In Arizona, voters amended the state's voter registration procedures by state initiative (Proposition 200) in 2004. Proposition 200 reflects the concerns Arizonans have in avoiding fraudulent voting by the large number of unqualified electors living within the state's borders. It requires county recorders to "reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship."17 Prospective registrants using the federal voter registration form mandated under the National Voter Registration Act are also required under Proposition 200 to provide one of various kinds of proof of citizenship in order to complete the registration since the federal form does not.

Since Arizona had been subject to federal supervision under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the measure was submitted to the United States Department of Justice for approval, and became effective in January 2005.18 As many as twenty thousand ineligible individuals were prevented from registering to vote during the year Proposition 200 was in effect.19 The law served its purpose.

But opposition to Proposition 200 was incendiary and unrelenting. A lawsuit was initiated by numerous "civil rights" groups claiming that the measure discriminated against Native Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups. The plaintiffs claimed the measure was a return to ma.s.sive discrimination of the past and const.i.tuted a poll tax. A federal district judge threw out the case, concluding that the measure was a reasonable exercise of state sovereignty.20 Eventually, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while not const.i.tuting a poll tax or having any other discriminatory aspects, the Arizona law was preempted by a federal law that establishes standards for voter registration.21 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled this June that Arizona cannot require voter registration applicants to include evidence of citizenship when filing their federal voter registration forms (although applicants could choose to file the state form, which requires proof of citizenship, and which lawbreakers are obviously unlikely to do).22 The 7 to 2 decision is another departure from explicit state authority recognized in the Const.i.tution.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-the Const.i.tution's Elector Qualifications Clause-could not be clearer. It provides, in part, ". . . the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Article I, Section 4 grants Congress authority to "make or alter such [state] Regulations" regarding "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives." Therefore, Congress's power applies to how, when, and where to hold Elections-not about voter registration and voter qualifications. Moreover, as a secondary matter, Arizona's law did not conflict with the federal Motor Voter registration form. It improved upon it. The result is that the states are reduced to seeking approval from federal officials to do that which the Const.i.tution already authorizes. Consequently, the Supreme Court permits states to require photo ID in order to vote, but disallows states from requiring photo ID or other forms of proof of citizenship as additional steps against fraud when registering with the federal registration form.

The modest, commonsense efforts by Pennsylvania and Arizona to ensure the integrity of the voter registration and voting process for all citizens have been replicated across the country. Legislatures in Kansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Texas, and South Carolina, among others, are considering voting reform measures. In every case, opponents are employing racially and ethnically charged rhetoric to obstruct what should be noncontroversial measures, and are doing so often with the legal backing of the federal government.

It is worth noting that voting rights during the years of the Articles of Confederation, as they were during colonial times, were left strictly to the individual states. Most of the original states required men to be "freeholders"-landowners of either a minimum acreage or value.23 Others required the payment of all taxes for the previous year.24 Ten states had minimum residency requirements in the state or in a particular county.25 Some states allowed "freemen" to vote while others allowed only white men to vote.26 New Jersey was the only state that permitted women to vote.27 During the Const.i.tutional Convention, the Framers weighed carefully the federal government's role in determining suffrage rights. They devised a system that was intended to preserve state sovereignty and ensure the viability of national elections in the Const.i.tution. They ultimately designed a structure where members of the House of Representatives would be chosen directly by the people;28 members of the Senate would be chosen by state legislatures;29 and the president and vice president would be chosen by an Electoral College through a national popular vote.30 Those voting in federal elections were to have the same qualifications as "Electors of the most numerous Branch of the [individual state's] State Legislature." This framework was a compromise between delegates to the Const.i.tutional Convention who wanted all federal elected officials to be chosen by the States and those who argued for direct elections for all national offices.31 James Madison supported the compromise in Federalist 52, despite his objections to it during the convention, arguing that the Const.i.tution's voting provisions appear, therefore, to be the best that lay within [the convention's] option. It must be satisfactory to every state because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established by the state itself. It will be safe to the United States; because being fixed by the state const.i.tutions, it is not alterable by the state governments and it cannot be feared that the people of the state will alter this part of their const.i.tutions, in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal const.i.tution.32 During the state ratification conventions, several states proposed amendments requiring what amounted to a citizenship requirement for voters. For example, the Virginia Ratification Convention proposed "that the elections of representatives in the legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, ought to have the right of suffrage."33 Rhode Island proposed the identical amendment.34 Thomas Jefferson proposed to "include within the electorate of any county, along with property holders, all free mail [sic] citizens who had resided there for a year or had been enrolled that long in the militia."35 These were arguments for establishing standards that would require voters to have a stake in their communities.

Following the Const.i.tution's ratification, some states dropped property ownership and property tax payment requirements, but most did not.36 Over time, however, and as new states joined the union, property ownership and taxation requirements were dropped by most states. By 1855, only three of thirty-one states required property ownership or tax payments as a condition for voting.37 But nearly every state required that voters be citizens or residents of the state for a minimum amount of time.38 By the mid-1800s, only North Carolina allowed noncitizen voting.39 With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), Congress implemented measures that were intended to enforce the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments-often referred to as the Civil War Amendments-to combat ingrained racial discrimination, particularly but not exclusively in certain Southern states. In addition to providing individuals with the right to sue when discriminated against, the federal government a.s.sumed sweeping "temporary" powers to eradicate racially discriminatory barriers to the ballot box, such as poll taxes and literacy tests.40 The Department of Justice was given authority to preapprove all changes to voting laws for jurisdictions demonstrated to have inst.i.tutionalized discriminatory laws.41 This included everything from voter registration procedures to drawing district boundaries.42 A five-year limit was put on this new federal authority because Congress and the judiciary recognized its shaky const.i.tutionality respecting federalism and equal sovereignty among the states.43 In 1970, Congress renewed the "temporary" powers for another five years.44 However, these powers were expanded to cover Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans. The act was reauthorized for seven years in 1975 and for an additional twenty-five years in 1982. In the 1982 reauthorization, Congress expanded even further the act's scope by removing the requirement for intentional discrimination in certain voting cases.45 The act was reauthorized for another twenty-five years in 2006.46 While acknowledging that discriminatory practices existing in 1965 had been eradicated, Congress justified the 2006 reauthorization on the basis of "secondary barriers" to voting rights.47 Consequently, with such an extensive federal role in overseeing voting in the nation, the resistance by federal officials to state efforts to actually ensure the integrity of the franchise-indeed, the federal government's legal actions and intimidation tactics in sabotaging and obstructing those efforts-was a profound desertion of self-government.

The original VRA had served its intended purpose, eradicating the evil of systematic race-based voter suppression. In another decision this June, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could no longer justify the federal government's interference with state voting decisions based on conditions that had not existed for decades. It struck down the VRA's state preclearance requirements while preserving the individual's right to sue against alleged voter discrimination under the act.48 Meanwhile, two recent federal laws have contributed dramatically to creating the environment in which incidences of voter fraud can flourish-the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).49 Each of these laws has imposed requirements that restrict state authority to regulate elections and has opened the door for widespread abuses in both voter registration and voting at the polls.

In their book Who's Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk,50 election experts John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky supply numerous examples of pervasive problems in both the registration process and voter integrity throughout the nation. They fall into two broad categories-noncitizen voter registration and voting as well as voter fraud, combined with the refusal of federal officials to enforce the law. Fund and von Spakovsky, among others, have demonstrated that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. In fact, the federal government acknowledges it.51 "There is no reliable method of determining the number of noncitizens registered, or actually voting, because most laws meant to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of noncitizen voting are willfully blind to the problem, or may actually approve of illegal voting."52 Noncitizens are on voter registration lists throughout the country. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the thirty thousand individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls, during a two-year period in just one United States district court, were not citizens.53 This particular district was in Florida, but Florida is not distinctive.

Colorado's secretary of state, Scott Gessler, is among a handful of state officials who have aggressively sought to enforce the HAVA. "The Colorado secretary of state testified before Congress in 2011 that a check of voter registration rolls against state [Division of Motor Vehicles] records indicated that more than 11,000 Colorado registered voters may not be U.S. citizens-and more than 5,000 of them voted."54 One of the many factors that may contribute to illegal aliens being able to register to vote is that there is no single voter registration system for the nation. There are fifty state (and the District of Columbia and U.S. territorial) systems operating at varying degrees of efficiency. And each of these systems depends on the skills, expertise, experience, and commitment of thousands of private citizens who man the polling places, operate the voting machines, and count and report the tallies at the end of the day. Further complicating the situation are the various federal requirements overlaid on these state systems, creating a nearly perfect storm of inadequate resources, outdated equipment, and often un-or ill-trained volunteers running the systems on election day.

According to a 2012 a.n.a.lysis by the Pew Center on the States, there are more than 1.8 million deceased individuals who remain on voter registration rolls.55 In addition, approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.56 Moreover, as many as 24 million-one in every eight-voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.57 At least respecting the election of the president, vice president, and members of Congress, requiring a state-issued form of identification proving citizenship can be the foundation for reforming voting mechanisms, while preserving the roles of the federal and state governments in the process.

Ensuring the integrity of the voting process is a rational and essential objective. In fact, the Framers believed that there was a common responsibility, a unique symbiosis, between the federal and state governments in the administration of elections. Again, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 provides, "The times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places for chusing [sic] Senators."58 The Framers also granted the state legislatures the authority to determine how members of the Electoral College would be selected in their state. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be ent.i.tled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."59 Shortly after ensuring that the state legislatures would set the terms of selecting electors, Congress was granted a share of the responsibility for conducting presidential elections. "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."60 Furthermore, there are four const.i.tutional amendments that break down legal obstacles to voting and expand the franchise-all of which, of course, required ratification by three-fourths of the states after their adoption by two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

The Fifteenth Amendment ensures the right of former slaves to vote: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."61 The Nineteenth Amendment ensures that women can vote: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of s.e.x."62 The Twenty-Fourth Amendment eliminates the poll tax, used by segregationists to prevent poor minorities, mostly African-Americans, from voting: "The right of citizens of the United States in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."63 Lastly, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment reduces the age of eligibility to vote. "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."64 * * *

The proposed amendment is intended to ensure that the franchise is secure for all citizens. First, it establishes the requirement for producing an official photo ID that designates the individual's citizenship to register to vote and vote. Although it is conceivable that a particular individual might not be able to satisfy a photo ID requirement, such IDs would be provided free of charge, as provided in every state that has adopted the photo ID requirement.

Moreover, the proposed amendment continues early voting, but only when circ.u.mstances warrant and only for a limited, specified time period, contrary to the chaotic trend toward multi-month-long voting cycles. As with most laws, the election laws-at least respecting the selection of the president, vice president, and members of Congress-need to be predictable, reliable, and consistent.

Indeed, limiting the number of early-voting days will ensure that the electorate will be casting their votes under the same general conditions. The advent of earlier and earlier voting schemes has produced circ.u.mstances where the electorate is divided into segments of dissimilarly informed voters. Some voters are making their judgments shortly after primary elections, others just before or after national party conventions, and still more following one or more candidate debates. The remaining electorate casts its ballots after a fully completed campaign. Premature decisions can lead to perverse results. The objective of federal elections is to achieve a national judgment for national leadership.

Furthermore, under the proposed amendment, where registration and/or voting is not in person, such as by mail, voters must submit an approved citizen-designated photo ID demonstrating eligibility for voting to become registered to vote and request ballots from state election officials no later than forty-five calendar days before the primary or general elections. And to ensure mail-in ballot security, ballots must also be returned and signed by the voter and must either be mailed or hand-delivered by the voter to election officials. If delivered by a third party, the voter must provide written authorization for the person making the delivery and the third party must sign a statement certifying that he did not unduly influence the voter's decisions.

Finally, no state may adopt an electronic voting system (or other technology-based systems) unless it is reliably secure, given the vulnerability of electronic databases to cyberattacks and other forms of hacking, manipulation, and corruption.

The proposed amendment's language and purpose are straightforward. The voter registration and voting requirements are vastly less burdensome and complicated than, for example, the Internal Revenue Code, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and most federal laws and regulations that engulf a citizen in his daily life. The proposed amendment will improve the integrity and reliability of the electoral process in national elections, which is increasingly chaotic; deter and detect voter fraud; and ensure that only individuals who are ent.i.tled to vote-citizens-actually vote. The proposed amendment is neutral, nondiscriminatory, and champions universal suffrage.

EPILOGUE.

THE TIME FOR ACTION.

NO DOUBT, IN A twist of logic, the state convention process and The Liberty Amendments will be a.s.saulted by the governing masterminds and their disciples as an extreme departure from the status quo and, therefore, heretical, as they resist ferociously all efforts to diminish their power and position. Paradoxically, it is they who distort the Const.i.tution's text and trespa.s.s its purpose by actively pursuing its nullification and abandonment. History demonstrates that republics collapse when demagogues present themselves as their guardians to entice the people and cloak their true intentions. I have no illusions about the Statists' capacity to induce confusion and spread disinformation in defense of their own ambition and aggrandizement. Indeed, the closer the approach to const.i.tutional restoration, should that day arrive, a torrent of fuming and malevolent rage will, predictably, let loose, alleging perfidy by the true reformers.

Moreover, it is an obtuse and defeatist notion of moderation that accepts the disposition of inevitable societal self-destruction without recourse to an available escape. Its irrationality is self-evident. Reacquainting ourselves with a legitimate const.i.tutional remedy, which we, the people, cherish and our public officials swear to uphold, should not be perceived or dismissed as a radical deviation from normative principles but a prudent, rational, and civil response to their disembowelment. The state convention process is a product of the Const.i.tutional Convention, envisioned for exactly this moment, and The Liberty Amendments are intended to restore the Framers' work. This is not to say that all cla.s.s of doubters, holding contrary sentiments, should be dismissed and their arguments declared meritless or contrived. Rational debate stimulates improvement by tapping into the experience, knowledge, and judgment of others. The entire state convention enterprise relies on, and rouses, the broadest public partic.i.p.ation and deliberation.

There will also be those who insist sincerely that electing the right president and Congress, and appointing the right justices, is not only more practicable but preferable to amending the Const.i.tution. They will cling to a particular election or judicial decision as evidence of vibrant republicanism, deluded by short respites and interludes to escape the intellectual and practical reality of societal transformation. I am all for the election of candidates and the confirmation of justices who are faithful to the Const.i.tution. Obviously, the amendment process does not preclude such efforts. But let us acknowledge the infrequency of these occurrences and the greater rarity of fidelity by these officials, once ensconced in high office, to const.i.tutional boundaries. In fact, even the most virtuous and resourceful among them do not and cannot possess the apt.i.tude and muscle to penetrate the daunting entrenchment and inst.i.tutionalized apparatuses of the federal government. Furthermore, the increasingly and significantly cloistered operations of the federal branches, the willful concealment of deliberations, the delegation of power to elusive and unaccountable bureaucracies, and the centralization and concentration of authority are all intended to evade the Const.i.tution, confound the citizen, and suppress self-government. This is a systemic problem that is bigger than any single federal election or administration.

The unambiguous evidence reveals that much of what the federal government does is unaffected by elections; this is the consequence of the Statists' design. Like Woodrow Wilson several years before him, Franklin Roosevelt made public his frustration and conceit, doing so on May 18, 1926, in a lecture at Milton Academy t.i.tled "Whither Bound?" Roosevelt lamented the limits of const.i.tutional republicanism on the federal government's power.1 As he explained, "Measured by years the actual control of human affairs is in the hands of conservatives for longer periods than in those of liberals or radicals. When the latter do come into power, they translate the constantly working leaven of progress into law or custom or use, but rarely obtain enough time in control to make further economic or social experiments. . . . Our national danger is, however, not that it may for four years or eight years become liberal or even radical, but that it may suffer from too long a period of the do-nothing or reactionary standards."2 Thus, upon ascending to the presidency, Roosevelt erected an autocratic program to overcome the transience of Statist electoral victories and interrupted rule, about which he had earlier complained. Roosevelt altered the character of our const.i.tutional system and mounted a lasting policy agenda largely invulnerable to opposition electoral victories and legal challenges. The repercussions were never in doubt and are now ever more tangible, with a definite upshot-devouring the civil society and subsuming individual sovereignty. This is precisely why the Framers provided in Article V a backstop to restore const.i.tutional republicanism.

Meanwhile, the American people are extremely dissatisfied with the federal government. Nearly three-fourths view it unfavorably; only 28 percent favorably. Conversely, local and state governments are regarded more highly by large majorities, 63 percent and 57 percent, respectively.3 This creates an extremely volatile and unhealthy atmosphere in what is supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."4 How much longer can such widespread and deep public discontent with the federal government persist? Is it not time to rescue what is ours by civil and legitimate means?

The state legislatures, acting collectively, have enormous power. They grasp the ultimate authority to restore the American Republic and bolster the civil society. The state convention process bypa.s.ses the intractable architects of this calamity, who have obstructed and sabotaged all other routes to const.i.tutional adherence. It is a bottom-up, gra.s.sroots initiative that empowers the citizenry, organizing in neighborhoods and communities, and working through the state legislatures, to stem federal domination, reverse course, and escape ruin.

The Framers, including George Mason, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, were not alone in their support for the state convention process. As attorney Russell L. Caplan, in his book Const.i.tutional Brinkmanship, notes, former president Dwight Eisenhower, during his commencement address in May 1963 at Defiance College in Ohio, urged the graduating cla.s.s to help return the rights lost to "a distant bureaucracy." Eisenhower, also fed up with the Warren Court, stated, "Through their state legislatures and without regard to the federal government, the people can demand and partic.i.p.ate in const.i.tutional conventions in which they can, through their own action, adopt such amendments as can and will reverse any trends they see as fatal to true representative government."5 During his presidency, Ronald Reagan referred repeatedly and approvingly to the state convention process in his battles with Congress over federal spending, a balanced budget, and the budget process. On August 12, 1987, in a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office, Reagan stated, among other things, that "[t]he Congressional budget process is neither reliable nor credible-in short, it needs to be fixed. We desperately need the power of a const.i.tutional amendment to help us balance the budget. Over 70 percent of the American people want such an amendment. They want the federal government to have what 44 state governments already have-discipline. If the Congress continues to oppose the wishes of the people by avoiding a vote on our balanced-budget amendment, the call for a const.i.tutional convention will grow louder. . . . "6 The state convention process provides a const.i.tutional way out, where, as George Mason declared, "the [federal] Government should become oppressive." And The Liberty Amendments offer a collection of reforms-a plan based on our founding principles-which address the Statists' most severe malpractices and distortions by decentralizing the acc.u.mulation of federal power, reviving federalism, and securing consensual governance.

I recognize the daunting task before us. But if there are better alternatives for effectively restoring the American Republic consistent with const.i.tutional republicanism, not abstractions or novelties, they have hitherto not been presented. Perhaps, at a minimum, this project will kindle them. Let us hope so. There is no reason to be pa.s.sive witnesses to societal dissolution, at the command of governing masterminds in the federal government and their disciples.

In the end, the people, upon reflection, will decide their own fate once their attention is drawn. As President Reagan stated, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us that we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."7 Let us do all that can be done. Let us be inspired by the example of our forefathers and their courage, strength, and wisdom. Let us be inspirited by the genius of the Const.i.tution and its preservation of the individual and the civil society. Let us unleash an American renaissance in which liberty is celebrated and self-government is cherished. Let us, together-we, the people-restore the splendor of the American Republic.

Time is of the essence. Let us get started today!.

APPENDIX.

THE AMENDMENTS.

An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress.

SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.

SECTION 2: Upon ratification of this Article, any inc.u.mbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

An Amendment to Restore the Senate.

SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I.

SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Const.i.tution.

SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override.

SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or a.s.sociate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.

SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three cla.s.ses, with the justices a.s.signed to each cla.s.s in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest cla.s.ses. The terms of office for the justices in the First Cla.s.s will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Cla.s.s will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Cla.s.s at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.

SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.

SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

SECTION 7: The States' override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.

SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxing.