[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S9304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S.J. Res. 58. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to granting power to the 
States to propose constitutional amendments; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


       state-initiated constitutional amendment joint resolution

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about 
first principles, about fundamental truths, about a battle that helped 
give birth to a nation. The amendment I have sent to the desk 
represents an effort to restore the federal system conceived by the 
Framers over two centuries ago by giving the States the capacity to 
initiate constitutional reforms.
  In considering my remarks earlier this morning, I was reminded of a 
trip my family and I made several years ago when I was Governor of the 
State of Missouri. In 1989, we were extended an opportunity to visit 
the site where the Continental Army, led by Gen. Atemas Ward, fought to 
seize Bunker Hill on the Charlestown peninsula.
  It was a moving experience. One cannot help but recall the monument, 
dedicated by Daniel Webster, that stands as a tribute to the lives that 
were lost. I recommend the trip to both Members and the viewing 
audience alike.
  I must confess, however, that the expansive field you will find fails 
to fully capture the raw carnage that visited Bunker Hill in June of 
1775. Close to 2,000 lives were lost in less than 2 hours. And, while 
General Howe's regulars were masters of the peninsula at the end of the 
day, the casualties they sustained were more than twice that of the 
American militia.
  Historians, Mr. President, have come to record Bunker Hill as a 
bloody if indecisive contest, an early salvo in a conflict which Dr. 
Jonathan Rossie has characterized as a ``glorious cause.'' Glorious, if 
warfare can be called that, because the issue that animated the 
colonists that day was freedom, for themselves and generations yet to 
come; God, courage, and posterity were their invisible allies.
  And as I reflect on those events, I cannot help but wonder what has 
become of the first principles for which our forefathers fought? What 
has become of the fundamental truths that compelled those great 
patriots up that hill, bayonets flashing, voices shouting ``push on, 
push on.''
  For that battle outside of Boston helped give birth to a nation, a 
constitutional republic that was the first of its kind. A system where, 
as Madison suggested in ``Federalist'' No. 46, ``the federal and state 
governments are in fact but different agents of the people, constituted 
with different powers, and designed for different purposes.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, Madison's vision is being lost. 
Judicial activism, Federal intervention, and past constitutional 
reforms have led to a gradual erosion of State power. In particular, 
the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments have had a disastrous 
effect on the capacity of the States to check Federal expansion. The 
former, establishing the income tax, gave the central government a 
virtually unlimited spending power, while the latter, providing for the 
direct election of Senators, worked to undermine the Senate's 
contemplated role as the protector of State autonomy.
  One of the single, greatest challenges we face as a country and as a 
Congress, is addressing the constitutional imbalance that has arisen 
from the convergence of these trends. Allowing the States to initiate 
amendments on issues ranging from a balanced budget to congressional 
term limits would do just that.
  The operation of the proposed amendment is as simple as its intent is 
clear. Whenever two-thirds of the States propose an amendment, in 
identical terms, it is submitted to the Congress for review. If two-
thirds of both Houses fail to disapprove the amendment during the 
session in which it is received, the proposal is then forwarded to the 
States for ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures thereof.
  If adopted, the proposed amendment would have tremendous value on 
several different fronts. First, it would force the cold corridors of 
power on the Potomac to respond to the will of the people--no more 
mandates, no more deficits, no more careerist in the Congress. 
Similarly, the amendment would allow the States to once again share the 
constitutional agenda of the Nation. And finally, it would provide a 
potential for addressing the problems of federalism in a context which 
could conceivably augment State power.
  In Gregory versus Ashcroft, Justice O'Connor opined that ``in the 
tension between Federal and State power lies the promise of liberty.'' 
And so it does. I believe reconstituting the federal system of which 
Madison wrote must become conservatives' new glorious cause. This 
amendment is a measured, moderate step toward achieving that end. For 
these reasons, Mr. President, I beg its adoption.

                          ____________________