Back about the second week of December I wrote here at some length of the current effort to call a Convention of States via the so-called “Article V” modality, for the purpose of offering Constitutional amendments. Mark Levin and others have written extensively about this effort, and it seems to be, if not exactly burgeoning, at least making steady progress. In a nutshell, the Article V process requires that 2/3 of the state legislatures (34) submit application to Congress to call such a convention. Congress has no authority to deny such application, so it becomes a completely “state-driven” exercise. Once such a Convention is called then presumably amendments dealing with limiting federal power, requiring a balanced budget, term limits, etc. would be offered. If approved by said Convention, the ratification of ¾ of the state legislatures would then be required for final implementation, just as in the standard Congressional amendment process.
Since the main mechanism of the Article V methodology is clearly the various state legislatures, I thought it might be instructive to assay the feelings/opinions/biases/etc. of our very own legislators in the Unicameral. On December 12, 2013, I therefore sent off a politely worded email to each Nebraska state senator asking for their personal inputs on the whole Article V notion and sat back to await the flood of replies.
It has now been more than six weeks and I have received four (count ‘em – 4!) replies … and they all came within the first 72 hours. I have no clear reason as to why the other 44 (I only sent 48 queries since Ernie Chambers refuses to make an email address available) declined to answer. Apparently they had other pressing matters, or they didn’t care enough, or they just thought the whole idea was silly … or some combination of those three.
I initially planned to summarize the results for publication on this blog, but 4 replies are hardly statistically significant, so I have elected not to bother. I will, however, make public the names of those who were kind enough to respond. They were, in no particular order, Sen. Tom Carlson, Sen. Sue Crawford, Sen. Mark Christensen, and Sen. Sara Howard. My thanks to each of them. To the rest … well … thanks for nothing.
I continue to believe that the Article V movement is a robust and evolving tool for bringing some sort of leavening to the devastating overreaches of the federal government. Importantly, it may be the last arrow in our quiver, which makes it all the more important for those for whom personal liberty, reduced federal government, lower taxes, etc., are desired goals. I urge everyone to support the Article V movement, even though most of our state legislature seems to regard it as too trivial to comment on.