Offering clarity for story about amendments

I want to thank Brian O’Connor for the interview and the article. Sadly, there were some errors in the reporting and in not showing the Countermand Amendment versus going into personal opinions.

First off:

“The best way to do that is to change Article V of the U.S. Constitution to put the states on equal footing with the federal government.”

This statement is inaccurate. We are not advocating changing Article V of the U.S. Constitution. We are using Article V of the U.S. Constitution as intended, by proposing an application to Congress for the purpose of proposing the Countermand Amendment. In addition to the application we are proposing a Delegate Resolution that defines the convention once called and the State Legislature-approved Countermand Amendment language.

Not stated is the Countermand Amendment language. This can be seen in its entirety at countermands.us. The major aspect is “Section 2. State Legislatures in the several States shall have the authority to Countermand and rescind any Congressional Statute, Judicial decision, Executive Order, Treaty, government agency’s regulatory ruling, or any other government or non-government mandate (including excessive spending and credit) imposed on them when in the opinion of 60 percent of State Legislatures the law or ruling adversely affects their States’ interest. When the Countermand threshold has been reached, the law or ruling shall be immediately and automatically nullified and repealed. This Countermand authority shall also apply to existing laws and rulings.”

Note that once this is passed it takes 30 states or 60 percent to call for the repeal of a particular law, rule, regulation, etc. This is a high bar and because there are many laws, executive orders that have come from both a Republican and Democratic Congress and president that so long as 30 states were in agreement those issues could be repealed, empowering both red and blue States.

Yes, there was discussion on the potentials of repealed laws, the EPA and executive orders. As to the 17th Amendment, what not stated is that this Countermand Amendment will not repeal the 17th but would rather force our Senators to work for the state legislatures. That aspect was never changed with the 17th, all it did was change how the Senators are picked, voters vs. legislatures.

Also, not stated was that the 17th was a major push by one of the most progressive presidents — Wilson.

Now can We the People, through Article V call upon our legislators to make an application for repeal of the 17th Amendment Convention? Could then that convention pass the repeal amendment and then 38 states ratify that? Yes, we can.

Second incorrect statement:

“The proposed amendment also would allow the states to eliminate federal gun control restrictions using the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal protection for all citizens under the U.S. Constitution.”

This is incorrect as well. The Countermand Amendment, once ratified could be used to repeal federal gun control laws.

Again, it takes 30 states to do so. This is not done via the 14th Amendment, once the Countermand Amendment is ratified it would be the 28th Amendment and that is what would be used. As to the 14th Amendment and the Second Amendment issue, the Supreme Court incorporated the Second within the 14th in the McDonald v. Chicago ruling, on top of the affirming our right to keep and bear arms as an individual right in Heller v. U.S.

The exploring of the 14th on gay rights vs. the intent of the Countermand Amendment was not surprising. All that needs to be said here is that if 30 states repeal the judicial decisions that violated their 10th Amendment right for the people of that state to define marriage as between one man and on woman, that is the issue. That would occur if the people of those states wanted this. My bet is once this Countermand Amendment becomes part of the U.S. Constitution, that will happen, because We the People are tired of judges legislating from the bench.

Third incorrect statement:

“Should a future referendum on gay marriage in Alaska pass, Coons said he would be willing to allow it.”

If the people of the state of Alaska wanted to repeal the state of Alaska Constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, that would be up to We the People. I would oppose that but if the vote was 51 percent or greater, I would have to respect that decision, period.

The last incorrect statement:

“Tea Party forums and press releases by a group called The Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for state annulment — the constitutional concept underlying the Countermand Amendment — as a means to fight government overreach.”

The difference between the Tenth Amendment Center and Citizen Initiatives is that that Countermand Amendment will repeal the stated law, rule, regulation, executive order, judicial decisions, etc. Nullification as proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center leaves the law on the books and puts forward a confrontation between the state and the feds that can have very negative repercussions. Again, the full intent of the Countermand Amendment is for the States to be able to repeal those Federal laws, rules, etc. that are of major overreach.

I told O’Connor that we have 15 states who we have sponsors for the Countermand Amendment, and strong potential that will increase to 20 very soon.

We also have an Internet show called the State Legislator Round Table, which can be listened to at cprworldwidemedia.com from 5 to7 p.m., Tuesdays and 4 to 6 p.m., Fridays.

Mike Coons lives in Palmer and is the National Director of Citizen Initiatives.