If our Founding Fathers included any fatal flaw in our Constitution, it was their expectation that citizens would remain as involved in the activities of government as the time our constitutional republic was formed.

Remember when asked, “what form of government have you given us?” Benjamin Franklin responded, “a republic if you can keep it.” Our founders haven’t failed us; we as citizens of this great nation over decades have failed them and ourselves.

What David Stanowski (“Founders built fatal flaw into perfect government,” The Daily News, June 24) proposes as a solution is known as “nullification,” believing our constitution allows a state to nullify any federal law or supreme court decision that it doesn’t agree with (sanctuary cities, abortion rights, Obamacare, Citizens United, legalized marijuana, etc).

If the states and the people have the right to nullify these, we won’t have a republic; we would no longer be the “United” States of America. We would soon have anarchy.

How would Texas handle those moving here who may not be a legal citizen? Will California honor the rights of Texans to carry/own a gun? What about states that don’t require immunizations against disease? Are those citizens going to be allowed into our communities or schools?

These and other issues would further distance the states. If the states no longer need to “reach unhappy compromises” as the writer suggests, states might put up walls between them to keep out “undesirables.” We may not have unfettered travel amongst the states.

There’s a solution, however, if our citizenry will become engaged, as our founders intended. This is via a Convention of States. Article V of the Constitution allows the states to meet and propose amendments to the Constitution to address potential central government overreach and refusal to address states’ concerns.

Our founders knew that a day might come when the power-hungry central government would be unresponsive to the states’ concerns. That day has come as Washington recklessly runs up out-of-control debt and spending, expectations of lifetime careers as politicians and appointed bureaucrats, and ignores the concerns of the citizens in the states that put them in office.

When 34 states have passed a resolution through their legislatures, all 50 states can meet to discuss proposing amendments to: 1. Limit the terms of elected and appointed federal officials; 2. Limit the spending of the federal government (balanced budget amendment?); and 3. Limit the power and overreach of the federal government — remind them of the limitations imposed on the central government as intended by our founders.

These are three areas that Washington will never address.

Any proposed amendments that come out of this convention must still be ratified by 38 states (both house and senate) in order to become an official amendment to our Constitution, thus keeping our states “united.”

We the people can reclaim the government that our founders intended. Visit Convention of States Project online to learn more and relieve any fears about this empowering process given to us by our Founding Fathers.

Michelle Davis lives in League City.

Locations

(7) comments

Diane Turski

This proposed Convention of States is just another path to the nullification Ms. Davis claims to be against. Don't be fooled by this trickery!

Michelle Davis

Did you read my commentary? Nullification would be chaos and anarchy. Article V is a "trick" ??? How did our founding fathers manage to get that "trick" included without a single dissenting vote? There was absolutely NO debate about giving the states the ability to convene to propose amendments to the constitution. And you know our founders debated everything; splitting hairs to ensure the constitution given to us was adequate.

Bailey Jones

I'm not aware of a single modern politician who possesses the wisdom to modify the constitution. Hopefully we have enough with the wisdom not to try.

Wayne Holt

I totally agree. If we could get them to abide by it without the distortions and tortured logic that has enabled it to be gutted over the years, it would be jubilee. I don't trust anyone on either side of the isle, Bernie in the middle or Justin flailing around the edges to "improve" the founding law.

Michelle Davis

They are following the constitution; the 3,000+ page annotated constitution that includes every single supreme court ruling (interpretation) of what our founders "really mean." Problem is that the supreme court has not always gotten their rulings right. The states should (and DOES) have a process in place to address these failings - Article V of the constitution

Michelle Davis

and the beauty of the Article V process is that we the citizens would be watching all participants like a hawk to ensure that our commissioners never take a step out of line. Some states are passing "faithful delegate" laws with criminal penalties if the commissioner does not follow what the legislature prescribes.

Michelle Davis

So, then you are against any proposed amendments that come out of Congress? That is how we have 27 amendments to our constitution. How else do you propose the states regain the powers our founders intended them to hold?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.