[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 26 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E232-E233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           STATES' INITIATIVE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM BLILEY

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 12, 1999

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced H.J. Res. 29. I have 
sponsored this legislation with Congressmen Kolbe, Goode, Stump, 
Gillmor, Metcalf, Shadegg, and Manzullo. This constitutional amendment 
symbolizes what in Virginia we call the States' Initiative.
  When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in Philadelphia in 
1787, they drew upon life's experiences and history to perfect the 
ideas and ideals the Constitution embraces. After they finished writing 
the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know they 
could not foresee the future. As a result, Article V provides for a 
mechanism to amend the Constitution.
  We all know the Constitution is not perfect, even after 27 
amendments. The Constitution has, although, protected the individual 
liberties all Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years.
  As the proud holder of the seat first held by James Madison, my first 
objective is to never do any harm to the Constitution. However, the 
Founding Fathers acknowledged a need to amend the Constitution. The 
States' Initiative is a direct descendant of Madison's writings.
  In Federalist paper 43, James Madison wrote,

       . . . useful alterations will be suggested by experience. 
     The Constitution moreover equally enables the general and the 
     state governments to originate the amendment of errors as 
     they may be pointed out by the experience on one side or on 
     the other.

  At present, Article V provides for two ways to amend the 
Constitution.

[[Page E233]]

  The first involves the presentation of an amendment by Congress to 
the states for ratification.
  The second is by constitutional convention, convened at the request 
of the State legislatures.
  Even with both methods available, to date, all amendments to the 
Constitution have been enacted following passage by the Congress and 
ratification by three-fourths of the States.
  Some have asserted that the second method has not been as effective 
as intended by the Framers.
  On the Op/Ed pages of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, my local 
newspaper, Edward Grimsley wrote about the dilemma which would be 
remedied by the States' Initiative. Edward Grimsley wrote, ``In the 
hands of the people the amending process could produce some truly 
wonderful results.''
  By allowing the States an effective mechanism to amend the 
Constitution, more power can be returned to the people. After all, ``We 
the People'' are the first 3 words of the Constitution.
  Why is the States Initiative necessary? Persuasive arguments have 
been made that a constitutional convention might alter the Constitution 
more expansively than intended by proponents of a specific proposed 
amendment. This is known as the fear of a ``run-away'' convention.
  The States Initiative implements a more effective method by which 
states could take the initiative in the process by which the 
Constitution is amended. This bill allows the States to initiate the 
amendment process that is devoid of the perils of a ``run-away'' 
constitutional convention.
  Another problem with a constitutional convention is that even if it 
isn't a ``run-away'' convention (that is, even if the constitutional 
convention met to adopt only one amendment), the mere fact that the 
States met could have a far-reaching jurisprudential impact. Would the 
Supreme Court view a constitutional convention which kept the pre-
existing Constitution as an implicit ratification of prior Supreme 
Court rulings? This would cause those on the left (who oppose certain 
Rehnquist Court rulings) and those on the right (who oppose certain 
Warren Court rulings) a considerable amount of trouble.
  To restore the Framers' design, that is a design where the states 
could initiate the amendment process, our proposal would allow a 
constitutional amendment to be presented to Congress after two-thirds 
of the States indicated approval of an identical amendment via their 
State legislatures.
  If two-thirds of each House of Congress does not agree to disapprove 
of the proposed amendment, it would be submitted to the States for 
ratification.
  Upon ratification by three-fourths of the States legislatures, the 
amendment would become part of the Constitution.
  I am proud to sponsor this constitutional amendment which will return 
power back to States, where the Framers intended it to be.

                          ____________________