Jerry R. Johnson in DBQ - 14 May 2007

Last nite 1 of those in attendance at the DBQ Co. Republican Central Committee was Jerry R. Johnson. Mr. Johnson is an official candidate for the Republican nomination for President. He has filed with the FEC & that makes him official.

During the meeting there is a period for candidates or their reps to get up & share a bit about the campaign. When he got up he explained that he wasn't running because he expected to win. Rather it was because he was promoting a Constitutional amendment. His 28th Amendment proposes to repeal the 17th Amendment. That amendment changed the way US Senators where chosen. His amendment would reduce the number of senators from each state to 1 & return the selection to the state legislatures to serve at their pleasure (ie no set term length).

There is a 2nd change that it would make. It would require all Federal Judges to be up for reconfirmation by the Senate every 3 years. (His print out had only the 1st 3 sections of the amendment, his website has 3 additional sections for the amendment.

He said that the amendment was to be sent out by the President with his signature & Presidential seal to every state to be ratified. In the talk he said that it was to be to the governors, on the website, he is the 1 who sent it to the state legislatures.

His explanation of why he was doing this: God told him to. This amendment would change things so that this country would return to being a Godly country. It struck me that in the way he presented this that he was saying God said that the US was to do this or else.

I have to assume that the man is sincere in what he believes. But I do have several problems with what he said & how he is going about it.

1st of all Scripture tells us to test every Spirit. I have done so & I do not feel that this is of God. Yes, God wants this to be a Godly country, but these changes in the Constitution will not change the hearts of people & until that happens no amount of amendments will have an effect.

2nd is with the way he goes about getting the amendment passed. Either way he suggests is unconstitutional. On his website he evokes the 9th & 10th Amendments to justify bypassing Congress. There is NO legitimate reading (original intent or not) that allows for the President or a citizen to propose an amendment in the way he suggests. The Constitution requires proposal via the approval of the specific amendment by the 2/3rds of both houses of Congress. An alternitive way of proposing them to the states is by a special convention called for by Congress at the request of 2/3rds of the State Legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments. The amendment must then the approval or 3/4th of the state legislatures or, as an alternative, special conventions in each state. Congress will determine the method. (For full details check out Article 5 of the Constitution.)

I would like to see the selection of the US Senators go back to the states as it was originally intended. To reduce it to 1 senator could mean at times a state has no representation in the Senate. (Still possible, but less likely under the current system.) & the lack of a term means a person could be there for 1 day or 20 yrs without facing some form of reelection.

& while I have some concerns about the way many judges legislate from the bench, the Constitution does have ways to deal with this if Congress had the courage to use them.

What he is proposing to do to amend the Constitution is not the constititional method of amending it. Nor is it (in my opinion) of God. While he deserves to be respected as a person, I do not see him as a serious candidate, nor do I see his amendment going very far. It doesn't have any merit for worthy consideration.