Randy Barnett and the Destruction of Federalism
24. Apr, 2009 
35 Comments
by Michael Boldin
Famed legal theorist Randy Barnett has quite an interesting article up in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Case for a Federalism Amendment.” In it, he proposes a Constitutional Amendment as a way to stop the federal government from exercising powers beyond that which it is authorized to do by the Constitution.
He begins by writing:
In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of “tea party” rallies around the country, and various states are considering “sovereignty resolutions” invoking the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan’s proposal urges “the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.”
While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
While calls for federalism and anything else that could reduce the size and scope of federal power are good, his proposed way to achieve this has a greater chance of destroying federalism even further, rather than doing anything to achieve it.
First of all, Barnett’s proposed amendment:
Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.
Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.
Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.
Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.
Most troubling in this proposed amendment is Section 5 – which is where this amendment turns towards a destruction of federalism, rather than a guarantor of it, by giving the federal courts even greater power to intervene in the affairs of the states.
Here’s how Kurt T. Lash, James P Bradley Chair of Constitutional Law at Loyola Law School and author of The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment, puts it:
“I agree with Professor Barnett that much of his proposed Amendment reflects principles of federalism which the Founders believed they had engrafted into the text of the Constitution. However, I think that Section 5 of the proposed Amendment threatens to transform this “federalism” amendment into a provision which would result in the destruction of federalism.
Section 5 appears to grant courts constitutional authority to invalidate any state matter which a court perceives to be a liberty interest.
Indeed, since the amendment is to be interpreted according to today’s public meaning, Section 5 opens the door to judicial invalidation of any number of state regulations which traditionally have been left to the states, but which an individual judge or justice believes “today” should be considered a matter of individual liberty.”
Legislating from the bench on steroids, anyone? Thanks, but no thanks.
Noted Constitutional scholar, and best-selling author of “The Politically-Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” Kevin R.C. Gutzman weighs in on Section 5 as well:
“In explaining his proposal, [Barnett] calls this section “entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.”
This is a blatant falsehood.
James Madison proposed an amendment in the First Congress to empower the federal courts to enforce certain (not, as in Barnett’s case, all) individual liberties against the states.
His amendment not only was never ratified, but it was not even sent to the states by Congress.
Barnett has long been on record as an advocate of the Incorporation Doctrine, the Supreme Court’s historically unfounded justification for enforcing certain of its favorite rights against state governments despite the absence of any constitutional ground for doing so.
With the language cited above, Barnett proposes to legitimate this practice.
Like James Madison, then, Barnett is attempting to use the language of federalism to grant the Federal Government new power.
While the idea of following up the tea parties and the Tenth Amendment resolutions with a constitutional amendment has merit, then, Barnett’s specific proposal can in this area only make things worse.”
Worse, indeed.
If the problem here is too much power, how can giving even broader power be the solution?
Some do agree, though, that a constitutional amendment is the way to go. So why not focus on amendment(s) that would actually limit the size and scope of federal power?
For example, in a post at Electric City Weblog, Professor Robert Natelson, an expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, recommends the following:
We need to discuss the content of such amendments, but to start the discussion, I’ve suggested amendments to require a balanced federal budget and to impose term limits on Congress – ideas that people are very familiar with, generally like, and that state lawmakers are have shown themselves willing to vote for…
Requiring a balanced budget and kicking people out of office after a specified number of terms do not together make a silver bullet, but they are, undoubtedly, direct limits on the power of the federal government.
As far as amendments go, that makes sense.
But what else can be done to, as Thomas Jefferson put it, bind the government down by the chains of the Constitution?
One word: Nullification.
Null-i-fi-what?
While not common parlance, the doctrine of nullification has a long history in the American tradition. It’s the legal theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.
This theory has been around since the earliest days of the Republic. For example, in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, an anonymous Thomas Jefferson penned what became known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions not only spelled out just what was wrong with the acts, but what the states’ proper and rightful response should be: nullification. James Madison penned a very similar resolution that was approved by the Virginia Legislature that same year.
Here are some of the Jefferson’s most powerful words:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…
1798 is far from the only time nullification has been invoked in American history. For example, South Carolina’s bold nullification of tariffs in 1832, against nearly the entire American establishment, is usually called a failure. But it accomplished its main purpose: to bring down the rate of taxation.
Ok, you might be thinking, that sure sounds great and all, but wasn’t this whole nullification and resisting thing decided by the civil war?
Fast forward to 2007, and you’ll see an effective, practical example of just how well nullification works.
That year, the Maine Legislature overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution that refused implementation of the Real ID Act, and demanded that Congress repeal the law. Shortly after, Utah did so as well, and soon, other states began to follow suit.
What happened? The feds backed down.
The original deadline for implementation was delayed from May, 2008 to December, 2009. As more states got on board and resisted through non-binding resolutions, the feds backed down again by extending the deadline to 2011.
What does this tell us? Nullification works. While the final nail hasn’t been put in the Real ID coffin yet, we have a great example of getting the federal government to back down through refusals to comply.
Regarding nullification, historian Thomas E. Woods may have said it best:
“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”
That, and not amendments expanding judicial power, should be our road-map for the future.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Michael,
I wholeheartedly agree that Nullification is a critical tool for the States to use to act as a check on federal power. I believe that tool should be used in concert with a movement for an Amendment to limit federal power. You cited a recent example of nullification regarding the Real ID Act. The question is: what federal grant will the US Congress threaten to withhold from these States when the time comes for this act to go in effect? Threats of withholding money, like, transportation infrastructure funds, is a strong deterrent to the States flexing their muscles.
I am not a scholar, but I can assume the success of the 1832 Nullification Crisis can be partly attributed to the fact that South Carolina would refuse to comply with federal tax collectors. With the current federal tax model, individual citizens and businesses are sending their money directly to the federal government. States can turn down money, but the press and the public portray this as grandstanding and hurting the citizens of the State.
If you combine the strategic use of nullification with a strong movement for a Constitutional Amendment, that involves the repeal of the 16th Amendment and raises the awareness of federalism, the US Congress may get the point. There are issues with the Amendment proposed by Randy Barnett, but that can be fine tuned. Ideally an Amendment would not be necessary if Congress got the point. The safety net to an actual convention being called is the requirement for 38 State legislatures to approve any changes to the Constitution. This is an extremely tough requirement.
The brilliance of federalism needs more public awareness. I was a little disappointed that I did not hear any mentions of federalism in the tea party coverage that I watched. When it is presented to the public in a common sense manner, I am confident it would appeal to a large segment of the population, across the political spectrum.
Keep up the great work promoting the 10th Amendment.
Civis: Some really important points and questions here.
What will the federal government do? It’s really hard to say. But if we look to the very recent (and still current) resistance to real id, I think we have a good guide. I believe there will be times – with enough opposition – the federal government will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. They owe their existence and their paychecks to the people, so if the people, through their states, tell the feds to back off, there’s not much that can be done.
It goes back to the old antiwar slogan – what if they gave a war and no one came?
Nothing.
The federal politicians can pass all the laws they want, and they can issue all the threats they want – but if no one follows those “orders” we’ll all see just what comes of it.
I do believe that the idea of new constitutional amendments have merit – and Professor Natelson’s recommendations of balanced budget and term limits are something that I could see myself supporting.
But until we “teach” the federal government that it needs to follow the constitution – what will new amendments do? Seems to me we’d spend a lot of time passing new amendments for them to ignore.
That’s why I see nullification as the all-important first step.
Randy loves judicial activism when it’s of a libertarian flavor. Play with fire and you get burned as post Lochner Supreme Court cases proved.
It sounds like a pretty good amendment. Lash and Gutzman do not like section 5 but I disagree with their opinion. It gives the court “the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty”. I realize that this would expand the power of the courts, but how would the power to nullify laws that interfere with the exercise of liberty be a bad thing? If making laws takes away liberty, wouldn’t nullifying laws restore liberty?
I especially like how it separates commerce between the states from commerce within the state. The courts have taken a broad definition of interstate commerce which acts as a back door for the Federal Government to impose it’s will on the states and the people, and over step it’s bounds. This would re-establish that boundary, which the courts should have protected in the first place.
I’d like the see the enumerated powers act added to this amendment. Make congress cite their authority to enact a law it passes.
I totally disagree with messing with the Constitution and suggest proponents are not on the side of the Citizenry v. government. The 1787 Constitution is perfect when it is “enforced” by the Citizenry. The 1787 constitution delegates the federal/central government all the power needed to “protect” the physical U.S.A. and settle squabbles between the States and be a good neighbor to foreign countries.
The need is for unconstitutional Amendments to be repealed and hold Lawmakers accountable to their Oath of Office.
Allan
We already have the Tenth Amendment, hard, cold, and no lawyers tricks about it. The trouble is, that Congress knows it can pass any laws it wants to and they have full effect until ruled unlawful through court action, just as the president knows that he can craft any ‘Executive Order’ he wishes, knowing that it is far outside his lawful authority as Commander-in-chief of the national armed forces; he also knows that Congress has 30 days from the publication of that ‘Executive Order’ in The Federal Register to deny the impementation of that order, but so far as I know, Congress has NEVER challenged an ‘Executive Order’, however bizarre.
Barnett, like every lawyer I know, is too much in love with the sound of his own pen. I’m not a lawyer, and I see holes in this piece of garbage that you could throw DC, in its entirety, through. Barnett is SO full of it – - -
I don’t believe the Constitution can be interpreted without the breaking down of its components and studying how each contributes to the entire document. My reference is the Executive Order 13132-Federalism. The executive office, a designated office based on the electorate operates under the documentation of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land. If my interpretation is correct, the Constitution and the law requires the executive to show natural born citizenship as a qualification for office. My concept is if this is not proven then the Constitution is not being upheld or respected as a national document designed as a governmental guideline of checks and balances to govern the people of the United States, nor without proof of citizenship is the law valid but void. This would mean that any executive order is unconstitutional and breaking the law. If the judicial body allows this qualification to be unchallenged it appears to me they would be subject to treason as well. This is my understanding and I welcome anyone’s thoughts that are more versed in this subject then myself.
The issue of federal activity where the federal government does not have explicit authority is crucial to understanding how far we have digressed from the founding fathers concept of how our country is to function. The solution to the involvement of the federal entity in areas reserved for the states is to educate the citizens of the states about this problem. Unfortunately almost all those in a position to educate people about this issue are tainted. For example, during the fuel shortage in the 1970s ?. the federal government wanted to reduce the speed limit to 55 and to force the states to comply it treatened to withhold federal highway funding. The states complied. Another example is the federal funding of schools and the consequent mandates required of the states in order to recieve the federal dollars. We now see federal mandates to companies who have recieved federal tarp funds and other bailouts. All the players at the federal and state levels have a proprietary interest in avoiding any drastic changes in federal activity in unauthorized areas. Only John Q. Public can change this imbalance and we must all speak out and demand change back toward proper constitutional balance between the states and the federal government
If you want to curb federal power then lets start with the basics. First abolish the 14th amendment, this is how their getting away with everything. Then repalce it with a state Sovereinty amendment of sorts.
The Fourteenth Amendment, if you dig deep enough, was crafted for the benefit of the railroads, and actual people were afforded protections under it only because people were not specifically excluded. The real federalism wedge is the ‘Obligations of Contract’ which was sold as a protection for maritime commerce from the insurers quibbles about whether or not they would pay a claim, but the ratbastard Hamilton knew full well that the federal government would abuse the obligations clause to sew up the citzenry in bound servitude through scamming them into commerce through contracts with the government – - – what do you think the Social Security contract is all about? There is no law that says anyone is compelled to enter into the contract, a contract entered into without fully informed knowledge of the terms and conditions, as well as willing assent, is void ab initio; the IRS got their grubby paws into the deal by telling people that their kids could not be listed as deductions absent a Social Security number. Now the kid is assigned a number at birth, all done under colour of law by means of people falsely claiming that a law exists. The federal government does not have de jure authority over intrastate commerce, as has been adjudicated several times in various courts; it does, however, claim jurisdiction over federally funded roads, highways, ports and such, thus unlawfully extends the interstate commerce clause.
Regards the ‘we’ll withold yatta-yatta’; well, fine, we’ll just keep all revenues generated within the State within the State. We send in a sollar, you ‘give’e us back maybe 20 cents, the other 80 cents vanishes. So, how’s about we keep the dollar, use what we need, and send YOU 20 cents? Keep your ‘free’ money, we can’t afford it anyway. For those of us who had an interest at the time, California was told ‘no helmet law, no highway funds’; Jerry Brown said, ‘Fine. We’ll just keep all the fuel and road use taxes generated in California.’ No more whining from the fed about California’s stand on helmet laws for motorcyclists.
If an amendment is needed, it would be one that says, “The Obligations of Contract Clause to the Constitution for the United State is expunged, effective immediately upon lawful ratification of this amendment.’
I am not a Constitutional scholar as these esteemed writers are but I do not believe any amendment to the Constitution is wise at this point. It would be much better if our states enforced upon the Federal Gov. those states rights put forth in the ninth and tenth amendment as they are written. Most states are hurting for more revenue. There are literally billions spent on the unconstitutional war on drugs each year. Individuals should not pay a Federal income tax but rather states should pay to the Federal Gov. those funds it needs to operate within its Constitutional rights. The Federal IRS should be abolished. States could empty out their prisons of thousands and produce revenue in the millions by simply legalizing and taxing some drugs. This has been an unconstituional law from the beginning and is pretty much ignored. This is why our prisons and court system is clogged up. This would also end much of the violence and crime because drugs are a black market product.
One need not read ANY of Mr Barnett’s proposal to instantly say it is ill advised, and probably more truthfully, idiotic!
Why would anyone, with a scrap of knowledge of the Constitution, propose an Amendment that is totally unnecessary based on the very clearly written 9th and 10th amendments?
The only answer I can think of is that Mr Barnett is an enemy of the Constitution. Any sane person who has observed the outrageous amount of ‘Legislating from the Bench’ that has occurred over the past 230 years could possibly believe that we need more ripping apart of our freedoms and rights by appointed Federal officials!!
I suggest anyone considering Mr. Barnett’s proposal read: http://www.nolanchart.com/authors/articles/article.php?ArticleID=6334 as well as going to http://www.foavc.org and reading the 750 applications for an Article V convention from all 50 states. Included in these applications are several which address the issues of the Tenth Amendment movement and the Tea Parties.
Perhaps the most significant is the fact that 39 states have already asked for repeal of the 16th Amendment. Thank you for your time.
The constitution is self enforceable and needs no judges. Section 5 is unnecessary and dangerous for the states.
Friends of an Article V convention are either incredibly dense, or are no greater friends to the Constitution than is Mr. Barnett. Nevada joined in the lemming rush to destruction, but realized that the ‘ConCon’ was a lethal scam and expunged it’s convention call – - – expunged, NOT rescinded. Eventually a bunch of other states figured out that they were being attempted to be duped and rescinded their calls, but the ‘ConCon’ weenies insist upon including all who withdrew, including Nevada, as being still actively seeking a Constitutional Convention. Anyone with an IQ that rivals his/her hat size understands that once such a convention were convened, there is no bar to the destruction possible; the motive behind the last grand and glorious gush was to vacate entirely the Constitution for the United States and replace it with a piece of UN fecal matter, in essence the same garbage that the European Union’s political pukes are pushing on the member countries. Thanks to France and the Netherlands, the implementation failed and was supposed to be a dead issue, but the traiterous bastards who stand to gain, hugely, from such a travesty changed the tactic and called it ‘an agreement’, pushed harder, and now only Ireland is standing in the way. When people clamour for something as ruinous to our Republic as an Article V convention, I have to wonder ‘what’s in it for THEM?’
Historically, the people who engineer and bring about the destruction of an established government from the inside are the first before a firing squad, something these doofers should think about; the prospective new owners will promise anything and everything; millions, billions and tillions but deliver the pay off in the form of a 25 cent bullet to the back of the head. Y’all think you’re livin’ deep in the heart of Fat City once the new guys take over? Nope. You’ll be dyin’ in a ditch with your companion rats. You really, really, REALLY need to check your reality locker. It’s empty.
Roland Rich – I don’t believe the Constitution, or any part of it, or any other law is self-enforceable.
If a law enforced itself then after the first law against murder, maybe first in the Ten Commandments, there never would have been a second murder.
My best determination is the People are the Enforcer of the Law (Oath of Office) of the Constitution on government Officials and the power/Right of force is written in Article I, Section 2, saying “only” the People can choose (elect) Congressmen and do so every two years.
Then consider Amendment V, (last paragraph) Federal, and State Officials, and all Judges, are required to take an Oath to support the Constitution. Can it be construed that “support” means enforce? I think not. I think it means obey.
Allan
To have a constitutional convention in the present climate is the worse possible thing we could do. What would come from it would be a socialist, UnGodly document with no resemblance of our present document. Our freedoms as we have know them in the past will be gone. Our constitution is written to govern in perpetuity. If left as it is and interpreted as it is written, without selfish and greedy people try to get something for their selfish interest from it we will be left to continue our climb.
Arklight,
Good post, thanks. You statement “ a bullet in the head” reminds me; Our enemy attacks on many sides and for the last 40, or so years, have been killing off our young people as fast as possible by criminally (unconstitutionally) invading foreign countries and having the people of the invaded country kill them. Those foreign people have the good sense to defend themselves and resist U.S. Democracy.
It is a real shame that the U.S. citizenry continues to reelect known criminals to public office, especially to the House of congress and every two years.
Allan
Alan:
Yeah, illegal foreign wars is only one form the genocide takes; type ‘Toxic Vaccines’ into your favorite search engine, then ‘Gardisil’, and those two searches alone will make ya wanna puke. For more on how Big Pharma is killing our kids, visit National Vaccine Information Center.
The other aspect about the latest crop of fonus-bolonus wars is that not only do the lawful inhabitants of those countries take a lethal objection to being freed and democratized by foreign armies, it is also a golden opportunity to fatally contaminate the earth, air and water of the region with depleted uranium particles which have a lethal half life reaching further forward than mankind’s origins upon the planet lie behind us. Our troops, contractors, official visitors and drop in guests are all exposed to lethal particulate matter; one particle, less than a micron in size, when lodged in tissue often produces fatal cancers, and there’s nothing to be done because you can’t find a particle that small and surgery just releases free cells to travel anywhere and start all over again. Additionally, the troops and contractors are subjected to toxic vaccines, some of which contain cocktails of live virii in addition to chemicals and heavy metals. Then they’re kept there, or keep being sent back there, until they are too sick for effective combat; at that point they are rotated home and dumped. It’s my belief that the physical destruction of our land combat forces is designed so that, at some point, there will be no combat effective veterans with which to defend our own country. Against whom? Pick somebody, but my money’s on Red China which already has 200 million men under arms, is acquiring state-of-the-art weapons and weapons systerms at an astonishing rate, and has said publicly and repeatedly that one day they’re coming for us. They don’t have the lift capacity yet, and our citizenry is still far too heavily armed (by volume) for anybody to just waltz in and take over; still, the Red Chinese seem to be an external threat (not entirely, but I wouldn’t wanna spoil yer supper), so the clear and present danger is the Ted Kennedys, the Sensenbrenners, Specters, Pelosis, Reids and Obamas who will not die and cannot be voted out of office. They’ll get their rightful payoff as well, if we lose the Republic through sloth, ignorance and stupidity.
Mr. Roland The Constitution would be self enforcable if we had oversight on the way our legislators vote. If they were arrested and prosecuted when they voted contrary to the Constitution and held accountable, there would be no problem to begin with. The rules are stated clearly but I doubt sincerely if any legislator from any state are even aware of them. They will become aware as this movement picks up momentum and I can see future candidates running on this platform and getting elected! The encumbants cannot even promise this as they have had their chance and failed.
Allan, I know our only tool to hold legislators to their oath is by voting them out in two years but a lot of damage can occur in two years. Right now any legislator trying to uphold his oath of office is an outsider to the rest of congress. To change that all states will have to elect legislators that embrace states rights and make the traitors the outsiders. When We the People can convince the politicans that we mean business when it comes to enforcing our Constitution things will change. I think we are on our way.
Allen: As I read your entry you seem to disdain Democracy. I invite you to go to a country that is un-democractic or in the case of the U.S. a Democratic Republic not a Democracy. Your referred to the “House of congress”. I suggest it is the “House of Representative the second house of Congress” The Senate being the first house of Congress.(Congress is capitalized).
BK Campbell: Your absolutely correct in your evaluation. However, the mind set of people is that they don’t care as long as those gislatures vote them what they want. We are a nation of wimpy, greedy whiners.
I question the wisdom of adding any new Constitutional amendment and view such action as an exercise in futility. The federal government routinely ignores or circumvents our Constitution and Bill of Rights; what is the point of giving it yet another amendment to ignore?
Perhaps I am missing something here, but it seems to me the only rational approach is for the States to demand our Constitution be upheld. Federal office holders who have taken an oath to uphold, support, protect, and/or defend our Constitution must be held accountable. Those who fail to do so should be immediately expelled from office; any who work to undermine our Constitutional Republic are traitors. They are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this Republic and should be tried for treason.
In such trying times as we now face this country simply cannot afford to have traitors in public office or even in voting booths. They must be removed from the seats of power and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Mr Lockaby you are correct.
I like Eric William’s proposed 28th Amendment which eliminates all taxation. Instead of taxes being used to pay interest to the international bankers, interest should be used to pay all the taxes. For more information: http://www.notaxesnow.org
Michael:
You are VERY perceptive to point out that nullification is a better option than the Art. 5 Con Con.
You get all the up side and none of the down side risk.
It is the better “mouse trap”!
Thanks, Robert. I do believe that a con con, especially in the form that Barnett is proposing, is an effort to actually expand the powers of the federal government. If our goal is to reduce its size and scope, I can’t even imagine supporting anything that would or could do the opposite.
Here are the opinions of 10 legal scholars, including two supreme court justices: http://files.meetup.com/684064/ScholarsOpinions.pdf
Just as concerning is this statement by Barnett, ” But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.” A Constitutional Convention opens the door to anything! A really bad idea.