Philip Blumel:
The swamp wins in Louisiana. Hi, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the term limits movement for the week of June 1st, 2020.
Philip Blumel:
In the waning hours of the regular legislative session, the Louisiana Senate rejected the term limits convention bill after it passed the full house and all the relevant Senate committees. It was a gift from the swamp in Louisiana to the swamp in Washington, DC. For more details, we turn to Nick Tomboulides, executive director of US Term Limits. Hey, Nick.
Nick Tomboulides:
Hey, Phil.
Philip Blumel:
What the hell happened in Louisiana, Nick?
Nick Tomboulides:
That is the burning question on everyone’s minds right now. As we discussed previously, the Louisiana legislature, state legislature had gotten extremely close to passing the term limits convention; so close, in fact, that on this past Sunday evening around seven o’clock the Louisiana Senate took a vote on final passage and it did not pass.
Philip Blumel:
I heard.
Nick Tomboulides:
It got a roll call vote. We needed 20 votes, but it failed. We had 16 yes votes, 18 no votes and five senators who were absent. We would have needed 20 votes for passage.
Philip Blumel:
All right, and just to remind our listeners, this is the term limits convention bill and it passed the Louisiana house, it passed the Senate committees. This was the full Senate vote. If it passed on Sunday night, then we’d have our fourth state that officially called for a amendment writing convention limited to the subject of congressional term limits.
Nick Tomboulides:
Yeah.
Philip Blumel:
We thought we had the votes, and we’d lost. What happened to those votes?
Nick Tomboulides:
In my opinion, the vote was based entirely on a false premise.
Philip Blumel:
Okay.
Nick Tomboulides:
I’ll tell you why; there was one Senator, who got up, he was so angry about this, he probably really opposes term limits, but didn’t want to espouse that publicly because he knew he’d be tarred and feathered back home in his district.
Philip Blumel:
Right.
Nick Tomboulides:
What he decided was he wanted to attack the convention. He declared a jihad against it. He got up and he gave this speech that was just loaded with false and phony information. He said, “Congress controls the convention.” False, the convention was designed to go around Congress.
Philip Blumel:
Congress.
Nick Tomboulides:
He said, “Congress ratifies the amendment.” False, the States ratify the amendment. Read the constitution, bro.
Philip Blumel:
Oh, my word.
Nick Tomboulides:
Then, finally, he said, Antonin Scalia was against it.
Philip Blumel:
Not true.
Nick Tomboulides:
That scared a lot of conservatives, but that like the first two points is completely false.
Philip Blumel:
Okay, so this guy was completely uninformed. We’ve seen this before in other States where people bring up these sort of scare stories about the article five of the constitution instead of admitting that they’re actually opposed to term limits. It’s like cover for them to say, “I’m just looking out for the constitution.” The idea that Congress is in charge of this processes is, of course, would defeat the whole purpose of the convention process, which the founders created for the sole purpose of going around Congress when Congress was itself the problem.
Philip Blumel:
Our founders were explicit about this. The mechanics that are laid out in article five are very clear about this. The whole point is that States will propose and that the States will ratify, and Congress has nothing to do with it. He’s saying that somehow Congress was in charge of it. Congress is in charge of the other method of amending the constitution where two-thirds of Congress propose and then they send it down to the States for ratification.
Nick Tomboulides:
Just to clarify for our listeners too, that what Phil is saying right now is not coming from a screaming lunatic who stands in the middle of an intersection. That’s directly from James Madison’s notes in 1787.
Philip Blumel:
Oh, sure.
Nick Tomboulides:
You look at when the constitution was debated and written; Madison wrote that if Congress had all the power over the amendment process, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained. Ergo, the article five convention was born and that is why this process exists. Everything… This guy was lying like a dog to his colleagues about how this works.
Nick Tomboulides:
Unfortunately, the way legislative debates work is the senators are locked in that chamber. They can only talk to each other. There’s no opportunity for an expert, say from US Term Limits or a constitutional law professor, to raise his hand and say, “Excuse me, sir, everything you just said is bullshit.” They’re just allowed to go on and on with it, and everyone has to believe it because they trust him, but it was totally false.
Nick Tomboulides:
Here’s the kicker, too, two of the senators who voted against the bill had signed our pledge last year during the campaign promising they would vote for it.
Philip Blumel:
That’s outrageous.
Nick Tomboulides:
Two legislators signed a pledge, which said, “I pledge to cosponsor, vote for and defend the resolution for an article five convention for the sole purpose of enacting term limits on Congress.” We have a picture of one of the senators, holding up her signed pledge and smiling. This isn’t any kind of Photoshop. They made a commitment to the people of Louisiana. They promised specifically they would support this bill, and then in the moment of truth, when it came up for a vote, they broke their promise. It’s as simple as that. Their broken promise, it’s right there in the record of the state of Louisiana.
Stacey Selleck:
Hi, this is Stacey Selleck, digital director for US Term Limits. Extortion and mob boss mentality of career politicians in two major us cities unfolds this week. Two local career politicians have been under federal investigation for racketeering charges. This week, Los Angeles Councilman Jose Huizar was called to resign by mayor Eric Garcetti and city council president, Nury Martinez, after new disclosures in the city hall corruption investigation centered on bribes and real estate development corruption.
Stacey Selleck:
According to federal documents, prosecutors claim the Councilman received more than $1 million worth of bribes from just one of the real estate developers doing business in his district. Several others have already pled guilty to the case. The indictment directly implicates council member Huizar and his illegal offensive and absolute abuse of power. Huizar has been in office since 2005.
Stacey Selleck:
The second news story this week on local corruption stems from Detroit, Michigan. Feds charged former Macomb Public Works commissioner Anthony Morrocco, and yet another extortion indictment. According to the Detroit press, among his egregious practices during his decades long reign, Morrocco threatened to yank municipal contracts, withhold permits and, in May, 2016, removed an unidentified excavation firm from a multimillion dollar sink hole repair project because the company held a fundraiser for Morrocco’s political opponent.
Stacey Selleck:
The charges document Morrocco’s lavish lifestyle was funded by development contractors seeking to earn favor on business dealings. These purchases by Morrocco included dinners at expensive Florida restaurants, condominium association fees, spa visits, wedding, and holiday gifts and yacht club expenses prosecutor said. The alleged scheme spanned more than two decades ending in 2016.
Stacey Selleck:
22 people have been convicted in public corruption charges in Macomb over the past six years of the FBI investigation. Far too long, due to commissioner Morrocco’s unchecked power over builders and contractors in Macomb County, business owners were forced to pay homage to the commissioner by purchasing expensive fundraising tickets for the sole benefit of the commissioner US attorney Matthew Schneider said in a statement. The two decades of alleged extortion by Mr. Morrocco show an obscene abuse of power and a grave betrayal of the trust of the citizens of Macomb County. Morocco, who held office since 1993, was charged with four counts, including conspiracy to commit extortion, extortion, and attempted extortion. He could be sentenced to up to 20 years in federal prison.
Stacey Selleck:
Elected officials have a special responsibility to the people who entrust them with power. Term limits would go a long way in forcing transparency in government dealings and to limit the hubris and abuse of power all too often associated with career politicians.
Philip Blumel:
Now, in the last episode of this podcast, you and I talked about the fact that most of the time, nearly all the time, politicians who sign our pledges, either in the Congress or in the state legislatures actually live up to them. It’s actually unusual this is what happens. What was special about this case in Louisiana where these legislators, at the key moment, ditch their constituents and went their own way?
Nick Tomboulides:
I think they were misled by Senator Peacock. I think they genuinely believed some of his spin.
Philip Blumel:
He spooked them.
Nick Tomboulides:
Yeah, he spooked him into voting against it with his scaremongering about the article five convention. I think, in that moment, they showed some weakness and they didn’t keep their word. Let me make clear, the last thing in the world that we ever want to do is get crosswise with any of these politicians. We would prefer people kept their word, but that’s unfortunately not what we’re dealing with here. 83% of Louisiana voters wanted this to happen, and those people are now going to be very disappointed by this outcome.
Philip Blumel:
Right.
Nick Tomboulides:
What’s really ironic is the senators who broke their word, from what I’ve heard, they’re blaming us.
Philip Blumel:
What?
Nick Tomboulides:
They’re angry with US Term Limits. I’m going to just present that without comment. I’m going to let the listeners decide whether senators should keep their word or not. It’s like, when you take out a mortgage, is it okay to just stop making the payments? If I promised to deliver you a product or a service, is it okay to not deliver you what I promised? It’s all stuff we basically learned in Sunday School or by watching Mr. Rogers, but apparently, for legislators, it’s a bit hard to understand. I haven’t the slightest clue why.
Philip Blumel:
Okay. Now, this Peacock, he came up with these outrageous claims, including, did you say that he said that Congress ratifies a constitutional amendment? Just pull out and read the article five of the constitution. It clearly says that, regardless of which method you use to amend the constitution, it must be ratified by three-quarters of the States. That’s beyond a question. There’s no one in the country that questions that fact.
Nick Tomboulides:
Why don’t we just read it right now?
Philip Blumel:
Do you have it in front of you?
Nick Tomboulides:
We’ll just read it right here.
Philip Blumel:
Let’s do it.
Nick Tomboulides:
Yeah, let me bring it up. Okay, I’m going to read the entire section, article five of the US Constitution. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Nick Tomboulides:
What that means is that Congress gets to select whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify the amendment, but they have to pick one of the two.
Philip Blumel:
Right.
Nick Tomboulides:
The bottom line is, it is always the States that get to ratify the amendments. What peacock attacked in his little soliloquy there was this idea of the conventions of the States ratifying the amendment. He says, “We don’t know what that is. That could be Congress. That could be… ” He sort of hinted at a shadowy tin foily conspiracy, but the beautiful thing is we already know what that is because there’s already an amendment in the constitution that’s been ratified that way.
Nick Tomboulides:
The 21st amendment, the repeal of prohibition, it’s the only amendment in our constitution that was ratified by state conventions. We observed it. We’ve documented it. Congress has nothing to do with it. It is people in the States deciding whether the amendment gets approved or not; either the state legislature or people directly meeting to decide whether the amendment is a good idea or not, but nobody in Washington has anything to do with it and that guy should be ashamed of himself for spreading that disinformation.
Philip Blumel:
He should.
Ken Quinn:
Hi, this is Ken Quinn, regional director with US Term Limits. During the ratification period between 1787 and 1790 seven States submitted amendments to Congress when they ratified the constitution. Among the 126 amendments submitted, two were for term limits. In keeping his campaign promise to appease the opposition to the constitution by the anti-federalists, James Madison introduced a series of amendments to the US Constitution.
Ken Quinn:
His amendments were revised down to 12 and were approved by a joint resolution of Congress on September 25th, 1789, and forwarded to the States for ratification. 10 of the amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791, and are known as the Bill of Rights. One of the remaining amendments was finally ratified 202 years later in 1992 and became the 27th amendment, which addresses congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election.
Ken Quinn:
Now, James Madison was not the only member to introduce amendments in that first session of Congress. Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina introduced 21 amendments, and three of them were for term limits on members of the US Senate, House of Representatives and the President. Here is the wording to the three amendments, “Nor shall any person be capable of serving as a representative more than six years in any term of eight years.” “From and after the commencement of the year 1795, the election of senators for each state shall be annual and no person shall be capable of serving as a Senator more than five years in any term of six years.” Finally, “Nor shall any person be capable of holding the office of President of the United States more than eight years in any term of 12 years.”
Ken Quinn:
Now, unfortunately, the interest in term limits subsided after this period of time and we did not see an uptick again until the 1950s in response to Franklin D Roosevelt abandoning the tradition of serving as president for only two terms, which began with George Washington. President Roosevelt passed away while in his fourth term, and shortly after that, Congress proposed the 22nd amendment to limit the office of President to two terms, which was ratified on February 27th, 1951.
Ken Quinn:
Since the 1950s, there has been approximately 300 amendments introduced in Congress to impose term limits on members of the US House and Senate. In the 1990s, four term limits amendments were voted on in the house, but all of them fell short of the necessary two-thirds for passage.
Ken Quinn:
We at US Term Limits are not depending on Congress to do the right thing. We are going to have the States propose the amendment without the approval or vote of Congress, and we need your help to do it. We need to pass our article five application in your state legislature to finally get this done. Let’s do this to honor those that have tried in the past, beginning with the first term limit supporter in Congress, Thomas Tudor Tucker from South Carolina. Please go to termlimits.com to sign our petition and join the revolution.
Philip Blumel:
Is there no way that we can have a second bite of this Apple? We can easily show that he was wrong. Now, they are having a special session in Louisiana starting today, I think.
Nick Tomboulides:
A lot of bills that have been assigned to the special session by the leadership, they’ve said, “These are the bills that we’re going to be tackling.” The term limits convention one is not on the list, but that’s actually okay in this instance because we’re, in a technical sense, we are not a bill. We are a resolution, which means that, if they want to bring it up, it is considered germane to what’s going on in the special session. That’s the silver lining that, here in Louisiana, we’re going to get one more bite at the beignet and we have a whole month to reconstruct this strategy.
Nick Tomboulides:
We’re going to have to pass the House again, and then we’re going to have to pass the Senate. We know the House, unlike the Senate, is very strong. It’s passed in the House 73-14, huge bipartisan vote, so that shouldn’t be too tough, but the Senate is the challenge. The swamp there, it’s adamant about corrupting members. You’ve got Peacock filling people’s heads with false info. We got to counter that. We need to craft a winning message and we need to make them feel the heat. I would say it’s all about the power of the grassroots in Louisiana.
Philip Blumel:
Okay. Keep up the good work in Louisiana. I know we came very close and apparently we have another shot over the next 30 days. We’ll keep reporting on its progress in this podcast, so stay tuned everyone. In the meantime, make sure, if you live in Louisiana, to let legislators know that you’re watching and you want them to vote yes on the term limits convention bill. If you’ve already done so, do it again. There’s going to be a new vote.
Philip Blumel:
Go to termlimits.com/lafinalpassage. It’ll take you two, three minutes. You can put in your address, it’ll look up your legislators. You can send them an email right there. There’s all the information right in front of you to do it. Please do it right now. Please pass that link onto your friends and neighbors in Louisiana. They need to hear from us right now, and we need to keep their phones ringing and their email boxes full with citizens calling for a term limits convention.
Nick Tomboulides:
I may travel out to Louisiana myself to rattle some cages in Baton Rouge at the state legislature. I’m tired of this nonsense. We need to get this done.
Philip Blumel:
Thanks for joining us for another episode of No Uncertain Terms. We’ve been reporting on how US term limits has redirected its efforts during this period of shutdown to collecting pledges from legislators in preparation for next year’s legislative sessions in which we’ll once again be in the nation’s capitals pushing term limits convention bills.
Philip Blumel:
Are you on Facebook? If so, you can help. Every candidate for the state legislature in USA has received a copy of the US Term Limits pledge and is being called and emailed by US Term Limits staffers and volunteers to sign and return that pledge. That pledge says that, “Yes, I’ll support the term limits convention bill.”
Philip Blumel:
Please help us apply public pressure to get them to sign. Go to termlimits.com/getpledgesonfb. There, you will find instructions on how to determine who your state legislators are, who is opposing them in the primaries, and then later the general elections. Then, for each candidate, you’ll see a link for their Facebook campaign page; they all have one. Go to their Facebook page and post a short comment and question, something like, “We need competitive elections and better representation. Do you support tournaments for the US Congress?” If they answer back, “Yes,” send them the link to pledge and ask them to sign. The pledge, the links, the instructions, everything can be found at termlimits.com/getpledgesonfb.
Philip Blumel:
Thanks, we’ll be back next week.
Stacey Selleck:
The revolution isn’t being televised. Fortunately, you have the No Uncertain Terms podcast.
Speaker 6:
USTL.