8 thoughts on “Regular Order”

  1. Well, I don’t have a “how” either, but any solution to the problem of lawmakers hiding in a crowd is in conflict with the solution to having just 535 people making laws for a nation of over 300 million.

    Thus the third option — confiscating from D.C. the power that it wields so unaccountably — kind of has to come first. Lower the stakes, and what problems remain are relatively inconsequential.

  2. Legislation to change back to Regular Order could easily be introduced at a Convention of States.

    1. That’s not what “legislation” means. It would have to be an amendment, subject to ratification — like any other constitutional amendment — by three-fourths of the states (38, at present count).

      I’m not saying it’s a bad idea or that it wouldn’t pass, but let’s please at least use the right words.

      2. And because we need 38 states to ratify any amendment, I don’t understand why anyone would think a Convention of States would lead to a “runaway convention.” Any ideas?

        1. Perhaps because we’ve already had a number of bad amendments which many still think were good ideas.

        2. why anyone would think a Convention of States would lead to a “runaway convention.”

          There are two observations to make here. First, the Convention of States has enormous scope. Second, while it may be hard now, can we really say that it’ll remain hard to rig a convention and then rig state by state approval of that convention? We have things like the 16th Amendment’s approval process to look at.

        3. I agree with both of these points. Unfortunately, we already have a runaway bureaucratic state which is far worse. Do we want that to continue?

Comments are closed.