Limited Government: Citizens Need a Veto Pen

The system of checks and balances brilliantly crafted by the founding fathers has been circumvented by big government politicians who write their own job security into public policy legislation.  While most of this growth of the federal government is slow and subtle, times of “crisis” can lead to a tsunami-like lurch in size and power.  Citizens are at the mercy of elected officials and unelected czars as they chart a course for bigger government.

Through elections, American voters have always been a check to reckless and feckless governance; however, the time between election cycles provides ample time for a radical congress to go unchecked in drafting freedom-killing legislation that grows the federal government.  Under the guise of so-called “mandates”, political parties in power write legislation that is difficult – if not impossible – to dismantle after the fact.

The Proposal

To promote the restoration of the federal government to its constitutional dimensions, I propose a Constitutional amendment be enacted that would require a national referendum whenever proposed legislation would nationalize any segment of the economy that represents a significant percentage of GDP.  This amendment would effectively eliminate the swift passage of complex, partisan policy that grows government and stands firmly in opposition to the will of the American people.

This amendment will be proposed by state legislatures at a Constitutional Convention to be facilitated by a coalition of limited government advocates, and backed by effectively targeted public opinion.

Justification

Dozens of similar amendment proposals have been killed in Congress; however, I would argue that the political attitude throughout the country is poised for a citizen-lead, grassroots initiative to slow down an overreaching government.

Scott Brown’s improbable victory in the special Massachusetts Senate race shows a citizenry who craves and will fight for limited government; in fact, they resoundingly rejected Democrat-led efforts to drastically expand government power.  The right message – articulated by the right voices – has the potential to ride a wave of citizen discontent towards a Constitutional amendment that requires voters to act as simultaneous key-turners on nuclear-level legislation.

Implementation Strategy

Successfully implementation requires bold and precise steps, carried out by a bottom-up, grassroots team of activists.  Their aim would be to promote the idea that power in the hands of a temporary, hubris-laden politburo can wreak havoc on the wellbeing of the nation, and produce disastrous unintended consequences that will linger far beyond elected terms.

Winning this battle will require the triumph of public perception, and the mobilization of energetic advocates.  By drawing a clear line in the sand, sitting and future politicians will be required to choose a side and defend their reasoning.  This sharp differentiation will clear up the muddled disparities between parties, weeding out Democrats who feign moderation and Republicans in name only.  Voters will know if their candidate will seek through legislation to transfer individual liberties from citizen to state or promote freedom by limiting the extent to which government controls their personal pursuit of happiness.

To this end, I propose the following steps:

1. Create a leadership committee consisting of elected officials and influential spokespersons that firmly support limited government and who will sound the clarion call of the movement.
2. Begin now to build on the existing groundswell of angst over government spending, power, and corruption by establishing a coalition of like-minded organizations, and by leveraging their contacts and resources.
3. Challenge all 2010 city, state, and national candidates to sign a pledge to limit government size and support the Constitutional Convention.
4. Invite pledged state legislators to convene at a Constitutional Convention scheduled a few months after 2010 elections.
5. Draft a proposed amendment and send it back to individual state legislatures for ratification.
6. Continue public relations push until the required majority of states ratifies amendment language.

Why this can and must work

One can only imagine what the political climate would be if there had been no special election in Massachusetts.  Democratic leadership would never have been forced to slow down on healthcare reform, and Americans would still be on a collision course with a bill that would transfer one sixth of the US economy to the federal government.

The citizens of Massachusetts demonstrated both the power and the practicality of a citizen referendum on dangerously large legislation.  When confronted with grossly undemocratic oppression, Americans will always – and should always be able to – vote to protect their individual liberties.

In recognition that there won’t always be the serendipity of a special election, and in light of rapid and violent shifts in power from party to party, a new and modern mechanism is needed to slow down radical legislation.  This unprecedented move to propose a Constitutional amendment through a bottom-up process not only harnesses the power of the current political climate, but it represents the best chance for success.