Article V of the US Constitution set out the manner in which the document is to be changed for societal/cultural/justice serving reasons.  The text of this article reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

While the method is clearly onerous, there is a way to make appropriate changes to the document to address problems arising from modernization of society. 

That is not just a method to change, but there is a common law concept here that plays a larger role in deciding how we interpret the entirety of the document.  The very fact that the Constitution itself sets out a method with which to make changes means that any other means of making changes is barred.  So people who say some precedent was made in the 1800′s (it doesn’t matter which one as long if it goes against “original intent”) are wrong. 

So what are the unconstitutional methods of changing the Constitution?

The three branches of the Federal Government each use different methods of making illegal amendments.

Executive

The Executive Branch of the Federal Government has two ways in which it breaks the law, first is the “signing statement.”  In this amendment the President signs a constitutional bill duly passed by both houses of Congress, and simply makes a statement as to how he plans on interpreting it to mean something completely different.  This method has a long history of precedents, let me stress that even if the President’s plans would otherwise be in full compliance with the Constitution, it flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause for the President not to enforce legal statutes in the exact vein that they are passed (so long as they are legal).  Another way the President violates the Constitution is though his cabinet.  When the multitudes of cabinets make laws in the form of regulations, this is in violation of the separation of powers (Congress makes all laws). 

Again it does not matter if the laws are otherwise in compliance with the Constitution or not, the very fact that the Executive Branch is legislating is the violation (amendment).  While I am sure there are many other ways the Executive Branch changes the Constitution, this is a good example of what I am talking about.

Legislative

The legislative bodies change the Constitution whenever they pass laws which are direct contraventions of the Constitution.  Alarmingly, I recently heard some federal legislators mention that you cannot make a constitutional argument in Congress anymore.  That is to say when a bill is debated, there is no longer any consideration or mention of the legality or constitutionality of the bill.  They also change the Constitution when they delegate their constitutionally mandated roles outside the legislative branch (think coining money and declaring war).

Judicial

The Judicial branch may be the most profligate abuser of the Constitution in that the concept of “Judicial review” established with Marbury Vs Madison is unconstitutional.  Remember, changing the way the Constitution is interpreted from original intent is an amendment (and requires an action under Article V of the Constitution).  Let me justify that for a minute. Any contract such as the Constitution is binding on all parties involved.  No reasonable legislative body (such as the ratification councils of the states prior to the ratification) would sign a contract (especially one of such import) in which the meaning of words could change significantly over time- thus, textual-ism and legal precedent are both illegal means of interpretation of the Constitution, and for actions justified under such regimes to be legal, amendments would have to be passed for each “change.”

To make original intent easier to find, there were a series of articles published during the ratification debate called the “Federalist Papers,” and another series called the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”  This is the discussion that took place prior to the ratification of the Constitution.  Within these letters are the exact intentions of the founders, and thus the only legal interpretations of the Constitution.  All interpretations to the contrary are unbinding (unless accompanied by a legal amendment).  Thus all of the times that the Supreme Court used any method other than original intent to make their decision (and they have used foreign law as well as legal precedent, as well as changes in the language to do so) their rulings are by the Constitution unbinding because they represent a change to the Constitution without an amendment.

So Who Is Supposed To Stop Them

There are a couple of ways in a federalist system to stop the three branches of the government from changing the Constitution.  The most effective is nullification.  With this method, the state governments simply pass a law that states the federal law in question is unconstitutional, and makes its enforcement within the state limits a crime.  This method usually entails fines and prison sentences for any state or federal official attempting to enforce the offending statute (normally enforced by the county sheriffs).  The state must stand firm, as the Supreme Court will undoubtedly rule against them. But as Madison said- The Federal Government was not made the final arbiter of their own power, as that would make their judgment, and not the constitution, the law of the land.  There is a common-law concept which states; In a contest between two laws that are equal, the one passed most recently takes priority.

Thus, the Tenth Amendment takes priority in these cases the powers not enumerated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states and the people.  This puts the law on the side of the state government in most cases.

Another way is jury nullification. In this way, during trial, a jury will determine that a person is innocent even though he may have violated the law in question, because the law is wrong.  This method has a long history dating back to pre-revolutionary days.

Probably the least effective way of addressing federal overreach is “voting the bums out.”  Sadly, even if you sent Jesus Christ himself to Congress he would be corrupt and rotten within six years. It flies in the face of human nature to ask a body of people to limit their own power.  Each one of them believes they will use the power to do what is right, and thus fails to see that such power does not belong in one place.  Or worse- simply wants the power, as the majority do, to elicit bribes from the wealthy by selling the liberties of the masses.

Two-hundred + years ago, the states purchased a Bulldog (the Federal Government) to protect them from their neighbors and help smooth out the interactions between their neighbors and each other.  Somewhere around 140 years ago,  this Bulldog got off its leash.  It looked for a time as though no harm was done, but now it is clear to everyone that this was not so.  The Bulldog goes around the neighborhood picking fights, and it has bitten our children over and over.  It is time to reattach the chain to the collar and stop the disregard that the Federal Government shows to the law.

Tim Reeves is an 11 year veteran of the U.S Navy, and is now an engineer, He grew up in Michigan, but has resided in the Pacific NW since 1992. He’s the State Chapter Coordinator for the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Change is inevitable, and not all change is bad just as not all change is good. Government is a collection of law. Politics uses philosophy and theory. The way to test these is to compare them to events in history. If something didn’t work 100 years ago, it will not work now.

To put state sovereignty to this test, you will see that it worked for around 90-100 years. The Articles of Confederation clearly expressed states rights, and the Constitution gives states levels of autonomy.

When it comes to change, people will evaluate the action as right, wrong, easy, or difficult. It seems that what is right is always difficult and vice versa. I assure you that a call for state sovereignty is right, but is also very difficult. Most of this difficulty stems from misunderstandings. You will hear people say that this resolution means secession. This in no way means secession or a second Civil War. Instead of thinking of this as a Declaration of Independence, think of it as a Magna Carta. Its purpose is to limit the Federal government.

You will hear people claim that this resolution is purely symbolic and will not pass, but it’s a good message. I ask, what’s the purpose of a message if it isn’t followed through? It may be a good message but who is it good for? Is it good for the state that cowered to the Federal government? Is it good for the Federal government that flexed its might at the state and made it cower? Who do you think is best served by this message?

You may hear it said that these resolutions are unpatriotic. I assure you that patriotism isn’t love for you government, its love of your country. This country is built upon Liberty, and the Constitution limits the government to protect that liberty. What is more patriotic than defending the Constitution? Who is more patriotic, the one that defends the Constitution, or the one that blindly follows the government?

I believe it is also important to examine the two types of change. One is a slow, gradual change. It takes decades for this to take place. This type of change is multigenerational, that is it is started and young people of every generation are constantly recruited to energize it, for nothing is perpetual.

The other type of change is radical. It happens almost over night. This can be the worse kind of change, because it doesn’t allow time for adjustment.

The change that occurred in our country was very slow and gradual. They say that if you put a frog in water and slowly increase the temperature, the frog will not leap out as it nears boiling. I say look around, the water is getting hotter and hotter. For decades things were slowly crumbling around us. This nation is like an old house, you can’t see the cracks unless you compare it to an old photograph. I tell you to look at how our country was and count the cracks that have appeared in our foundation. We all know that after a foundation is damaged, the house will soon collapse.

So as things slowly changed, we as defenders of the Constitution sat around and watched. The mentality was wrong. People either thought that it would never happen, or that they couldn’t do anything to stop it. I assure you that those two mentalities are very dangerous.

Things can always change, regardless of how good the original way may be. The second mentality is actually correct. When you think that you can’t do something, you can’t. The strength is always in numbers. One stick will snap easily, but a bundle will hold strong. Always beware of people who won’t help because it’s against “the” way. A way should never be devoid of right or wrong and become “the” way. Regardless of how established it is, it will fall into one of the two categories.

The question is then how must we act. What type of change must we bring about? Gradual change is too slow, radical is too fast. We must achieve a perfect balance between patience and ferocity. Ferocity should always be synonymous with liberty. Consider the nature of a wild and domesticated dog. A domesticated dog enjoys its captivity, but a wild dog will fight fiercely to avoid capture.

That is how we must be. We must provide fierce, constant, and persistent pressure on our legislature. We must rally friends, neighbors, and strangers to our cause for them to do the same.

Our argument must be logical. I say we take our founders intentions to heart, but not have them be our argument. The truth is, most people don’t care what our founders intended, and it’s near impossible to make them care.

Our founders’ intentions make a great aid to our argument, but we must paint a picture of why our nation would be better with a weaker central government. Our argument is better served with facts of lower taxes, greater individual liberty, etc; as opposed to what Jefferson or Madison intended. As time erodes all things, sadly, it also erodes the meanings of words. That’s why we must consider this a renewal of Federalism, not a return to it.

We are by no means to disregard their words, their philosophy is true. We are to base our argument on their words, not have their words be the sole argument. You are stronger by reading their words and getting into their mindset than by just quoting their words.

This is the time to act. You must educate people on this matter. Instruct them to write their representatives to their state legislature, and to educate more people to do the same. Our strength will be in numbers. This is the opportunity to either do as we have done for decades, which was nothing, or we can act and work together to obtain this goal. The choice is yours to make.

One reason people are unhappy with the way politics and governments operate is that people who run for office are known to “say one thing and do another.”  Thus, we have the call for “change.”

Candidates for high office make frequent use of that word.  Even our House Republican Conference’s recently released slogan highlights that word.

Yet, bringing about change is easier said than done.  The American people are aware that government is broken and must be fixed.  They will demand more than lip service as our problems become more severe.

Change, then, cannot simply be a word.  It must be the right program, one that gets us out of this mess, not one that just accelerates us down the same treacherous path.

With our economy facing a perilous situation, the need to bring fiscal reform to our government is the cornerstone of the kind of change that is needed.  Real budgetary and monetary reform would signify a true change of direction, instead of merely a change of speed toward the economic cliff we are approaching.

Americans realize that their own financial situation is perilous.  The nation as a whole is deeply in debt, having mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren.  When politicians talk about what they plan to do for future generations, they ought to begin by stating how they will remove the huge debt burden, not how they will find more ways to spend more money they don’t have.

In order to allow Americans to pay for their needs, whether for healthcare, education, or basics like food and gasoline, we need to change tax and monetary policies so the American people control more of their own money.  That money needs to stay in the economy, and out of the government money pit.

This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government.  We need to reign in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

We need to take a view of government that better reflects our own experience, as well as the wisdom of our nation’s founders.  There are very few constitutionally authorized federal powers, and returning daily government to this wisdom is real change.

Working toward a less intrusive, less expensive federal government focused on defending against overt actions of force and fraud, is the means to bringing about real change.

As we hear the repeated claims of those who wish to cast themselves as agents of change, we will do well to recall that more federal meddling is not a change in direction at all, but just “more of the same.”  We should be repealing programs, not proposing costly new bureaucracies.

Change, real change, the only kind of change that will quench the thirst of the American people for a new direction and provide us with the prosperity and security necessary to preserve our Republic as a beacon of liberty, requires bold initiatives designed to move our country away from economic peril by putting faith in free citizens instead of in Washington.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.