It turns out you don’t have to take up arms and occupy federal offices to fight D.C. overreach.
Last week I wrote about the confused vision of some of the “constitutionalists” in Arizona who propose new authorities for constitutional interpretation. There are the Oath Keepers and the “constitutional sheriffs,” for example, who claim the local sheriff should be handing down Supreme Court-like judgments.
And there are the people who dream the undying dream that an armed showdown will make the American people rise up against federal tyranny.
But there are also equally passionate people like Jeffrey Utsch, a northwest-side resident who for years has been pushing a different solution to federal overreach. He is part of a movement asking the states to band together to force a convention to amend the Constitution.
Utsch’s favored strand of this movement is the Compact for America, which wants enough state legislatures to pass resolutions to force a constitutional meeting at which only a balanced-budget amendment would be considered.
He’s also a fan, though, of the Convention of States, a group pushing the legislatures to demand a convention, but one where the agenda is not quite so limited.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution establishes a process for states to force a meeting to consider constitutional changes. Two-thirds of the state legislatures must “apply” for the meeting, which Congress must call. Any amendments passed there must be approved by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution.
“If we were able to call the founders down and whine and complain to them about our current situation, they would basically say, ‘Have you used the tools we’ve given you to set it straight?’” Utsch said. “Article V, calling a convention through the states, is the biggest tool they’ve given us. We have not taken advantage of it.”
“The founders envisioned that at some point this could be used to correct errors that had been made, or that there would inevitably be concentration of power,” Utsch said.
If you’ve noticed, I haven’t called this a “constitutional convention.” That’s on Utsch’s advice. He says that phrase refers to a broader convention to rewrite the constitution, which isn’t the idea here.
The Compact for America group has designed language that each state could pass to call for a convention and limit it to just considering a balanced-budget amendment. The Convention of States supporters, on the other hand, are trying to call a convention on a broader subject: limiting the power of the federal government.
Either idea could likely pass the Arizona House of Representatives, where Republican Rep. Kelly Townsend of Mesa got a convention-of-states resolution passed last year and has introduced another this year. Fellow Republican Rep. Mark Finchem of Oro Valley told me he’d support a convention of states bill, provided that any amendments coming out of the convention apply to single issues only.
However, Republican Senate President Andy Biggs of Gilbert — even though he is an anti-big-government conservative — is not a fan of plans to amend the Constitution and has blocked all efforts so far.
His argument, which he detailed last year in a book called, “The Con of the Con Con,” is that what’s wrong with the country isn’t a result of problems in the U.S. Constitution, and so it shouldn’t be tinkered with.
But Utsch is confident that the balanced-budget amendment, once passed, could open Americans’ eyes to the possibilities in using Article V.
“I’d rather see one amendment we can get through, about not robbing the next generation, setting a template for what should be done,” he said.
Me, I’m not sure I support any of these ideas. But they’re the process we have — and a lot more responsible than taking up arms against the federal government.
INTERDICTION AGAINST ADDICTIONS
Hearing Gov. Doug Ducey‘s State of the State speech twice allowed me to gauge better what got me most riled up. It wasn’t the economic issues I wrote about in Wednesday’s column.
And it wasn’t the idea of publicizing “deadbeats” who owe lots of child support. Though at first this idea struck me as bad because it involves public shaming, I later learned that only people with outstanding arrest warrants and big debts will be publicized. This could help some kids get money they’re owed.
What bothered me the most was Ducey’s continued attempt to link his idea for a state “Strike Force” against border crime to helping solve the state’s opioid addiction problem.
“Let’s stand together this session and provide law enforcement — especially our border county sheriffs — the resources they need to ramp up the fight against the bad guys and end this scourge on our state,” Ducey said.
I wrote about this last month, but I wish the governor would take this point to heart: Interdiction of illegal drugs has no impact on addiction. To suggest that putting more cops on the border will help our addiction problem is drug-war rhetoric from decades ago that rings hollow in 2016.
CD1 CLOWN CONVOY
It’s well-known that in Arizona’s first congressional district, a big group of candidates is running for the Republican nomination. The truth is, it’s a pretty strong slate.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu is the leading contender, a new poll shows, followed by rancher and businessman Gary Kiehne, former Secretary of State Ken Bennett, Speaker of the House David Gowan and Navajo businessman Shawn Redd.
Now an additional candidate, Wendy Rogers, who previously ran in the 9th Congressional District, has also joined the race, making six Republican candidates.
The Democrats now have three candidates of their own, though only one of them well-known. Former legislator Tom O’Halleran is the leading contender, and is joined in the race by previous candidate Miguel Olivas and James Maloney.
