The Convention of States Project seeks, as its name reflects, a convention of states as provided for in Article V of the US Constitution. Such a convention, CPS claims, would “only allow” discussion of amendments that “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”

The magic number of states for calling a convention  is 34. According to a map on the CPS site, 15 states have passed the required resolution, while one legislative chamber has passed it in nine, and another 16 have “active legislation” on the matter. So, while it may or may not happen, it’s certainly a live proposal.

The idea comes with quite a few problems.

One is that such a convention would decide for itself what it was “allowed” to do, just as the first such convention exceeded its own mandate (it was only “allowed” to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but instead proposed replacing those Articles with the Constitution).

A second problem is that (fortunately, vis a vis the first) it’s unlikely that the states would be able to agree on much at all.

A third problem is that even if they did agree in convention, it’s unlikely that 3/4 of the states would ratify term limits or fiscal restraints. Every state legislator sees a future US Representative, Senator, or president in the mirror each morning, and they all tend to a (secret, contradicting their campaign rhetoric) variant on St. Augustine’s prayer:  “Give me chastity and continence, but not right now.”

The biggest problem, though is that a constitution is, even at its very perfected best, only as good as adherence to that constitution.

Why do supporters of an Article V convention expect the US government would obey the proposed amendments any more than it obeys the existing document?

“In questions of power,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798, “let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Three years later, Jefferson was President of the United States.  Five years later, he proved himself (and Congress) unbound by those chains with the Louisiana Purchase, an act provided for nowhere in that Constitution.

In 1870, American anarchist Lysander Spooner observed that “whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”

“In either case,” Spooner concluded, “it is unfit to exist.”

I’m skeptical of the notion that political government can ever be forced to limit its own power and prerogatives. The history of the United States tends to justify that skepticism.

Absent evidence that America’s rulers can be bound down from supposedly forbidden mischief by the chains of the existing Constitution, attempting to amend that Constitution seems more like an eccentric hobby — on the order of building model UFOs or collecting rare tuna cans — than a serious attempt to secure our rights and defend our liberty.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

US President Joe Biden rolled out his 2022 federal budget request on May 28, surprising no one with his proposals for lavish expenditures on education, healthcare, and infrastructure, or with his promise that only the rich will be soaked to pay for it all (the $1.8 trillion projected deficit will be borrowed in your name, but you’re not supposed to notice).

Given that the US is drawing down its 20-year war in Afghanistan, one might expect some kind of peace dividend on the mis-named “defense” line of the proposal, but no such luck.

Biden proposes an increase of “only” 1.7%, to $715 billion, with “only” eight new warships instead of the 12 called for in the Navy’s shipbuilding plan. Biden also wants to “invest” in 85 more F-35 Lightning combat aircraft, one of the US “defense” industry’s favorite white elephants.

“Wholly inadequate!” complain US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and US Representative Mike Rogers  (R-AL), ranking members on their respective houses’ Armed Services Committees.

US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calls the general budget proposal “insanely expensive,” but also gripes that “over time it will result in a weakened Department of Defense.”

In mid-May, anticipating the possibility that Biden might not offer to forklift much larger pallets of new cash into “defense” contractors’ getaway trucks, US Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) declared that failing to increase US military spending by 3-5%, above and beyond inflation, would be a “red line” for Republicans.

Let’s be clear on one thing: The US “defense” budget has little to do with defense. If it was really about defense, it could be cut by 90% and still be bloated.

The US “defense” budget is about two things: Redistributing wealth from your wallet to the bank accounts of “defense” contractors, and trying unsuccessfully to rule the world.

On the former front, if it was really  about defense, US Coast Guard ships would be patrolling the US coast, not the Iranian coast, and a much smaller force of US military personnel would have spent the last 20 years in places like Texas and Vermont rather than in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, etc.

On the latter front, it’s no coincidence that, as Reuters reports, “Senators and governors have come out to support the[F-35] which has a huge industrial base.” That is, a base of generous campaign contributors who also create artificial “jobs” in the Senators’ and governors’ states, building something for which there’s no real market demand but which you can be forced to buy whether you want it or not.

“All the armies of Europe and Asia,” Abraham Lincoln said in 1838, “could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years.” He was right then, and even with an actual defense budget one tenth the current size of the military budget, he’d be right today.

The US “defense” budget is a transparent scam.  It’s disappointing, but not especially surprising, that Joe Biden is an only slightly less aggressive con artist than his Republican counterparts.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Unity begins with the truth,” US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted on January 13, arguing in favor of the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump,  “and the truth demands accountability.”

Senator Warren just loves her some “accountability.” In 2018, she proposed the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” In 2019, the “Corporate Executive Accountability Act.” In 2020, according to Forbes, she demanded “Accountability From 181 CEOs.” A Google search on her name and the word “accountability” returns 668,000 results.

The relevant question when Senator Warren brings up “accountability” is, of course, “accountability to whom?”

And the feeling one gets, regardless of her claims to be acting on behalf of workers, consumers, or corporate shareholders, is that it’s really all about accountability to … drum roll please … US Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Warren’s not the only politician with such an attitude, of course. She’s just more loudly transparent about it than most, which is why I picked her to pick on here.

Her mask (no, not the COVID-19 mask, the other one) briefly came off on March 25 when she told Amazon that she’s “fight[ing] to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.”

She means to rule. She thinks she’s ENTITLED to rule. And the peasants (a group she places even Jeff Bezos, at the moment the second wealthiest man in the world, in!)? Our job is to keep our smart-aleck mouths shut and do as we’re told.

So, to whom is Senator Warren  herself accountable?

The easy answer is “the voters of Massachusetts.” But the US has a de facto “Senator for Life” system under which incumbents get re-elected more than 90% of the time. Not so much because their voters love them, as because incumbents rake in a lot of money to hold onto their seats for as long as they like, while challengers tend to struggle.

Perhaps she’s accountable to her campaign contributors? But owners or employees of the “Big Tech” firms she says she wants to “break up” rank high on that list (Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, and, yes, Amazon are all in the top 20). Are they trying to buy her off, or maybe change her mind? Either way, it doesn’t seem to be working.

As best I can tell, the only person US Senator Elizabeth Warren considers herself accountable to is US Senator Elizabeth Warren.

And on that count, US Senator Elizabeth Warren is par for the course as American politicians go.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY