Philip Blumel:
It’s Term Limits Deja Vu 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 22, 2020.
Speaker 2:
Your sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel:
The Term Limits convention bill passed the Louisiana house early last week. The second time this has happened in the last month. Then on Friday, it passed its first and only Senate committee stuff again, and has hedged the Senate floor for a vote. Again, Nick Tomboulides, executive director of US Term Limits is here to help us make sense of this. Hey Nick.
Nick Tomboulides:
Hi.
Philip Blumel:
Oh, what a week. We have a new session, a special session. And so far it looks like a rerun of the regular session that we just got done with. We’re passing all the relevant committees. The house passed the Term Limits’ Convention Bill. The relevant Senate committee passed the Term Limits’ Convention Bill. And now we have a floor vote scheduled for next week.
Nick Tomboulides:
Yes.
Philip Blumel:
Is this going to be a rerun or is it going to have a different ending this time?
Nick Tomboulides:
It does have a little bit of a groundhog day vibe to it.
Philip Blumel:
It sure does.
Nick Tomboulides:
The house. You have to commend all the legislators in the Louisiana house, or at least most of them because, it’s now passed the house twice by an overwhelming bipartisan margin.
Philip Blumel:
Right.
Nick Tomboulides:
Just died in the regular session. It was revived in the special session by a representative Mark Wright, who’s our lead sponsor. Mark Wright has now gotten this passed twice through the same chamber. So tremendous kudos to him. This guy is a Patriot. The Louisiana house is full of patriotic people, who love Term Limits, but the Senate, as you noted, it’s a very different story. So on Friday, the bill had its Senate committee hearing, its second Senate committee hearing, a do over and it passed unanimously, five to zero. It was a fun hearing to watch, Aaron Dukette who is one of our Term Limits warriors on the ground there, he absolutely schooled the committee on the Article V Convention process.
Nick Tomboulides:
You have to realize what’s happening here is, a lot of the politicians know that they can’t publicly come out against Term Limits because it’s too popular. So, in their infinite cunning have come up with this strategy of attacking the process, tell people that we can’t trust in Article V Convention. Now of course, Article V Convention, the founding fathers of the United States came up with it, it’s a very safe process, people know how it works. 38 States have to sign off on anything, but the opponents of Term Limits are fomenting division and uncertainty, on the basis of that. They’re spreading misinformation. That’s what we saw on the floor of the Senate last time.
Nick Tomboulides:
I think what’s going to be different about it this time is that we are fixing the facts. We are correcting the misinformation. We’re getting facts, source material to the senators. And if you listen to this clip, Aaron Dukette, he basically demolished all of these myths, in a matter of minutes. He clearly won over the senators. Seeing as the result was so positive, it was five zero. The first time we went through that committee, there were actually a few senators who voted against it. So, I think we’re in a much better position right now, and hats off to Aaron as well for doing a super job.
Philip Blumel:
Well, let’s hear it. Let’s play the majority of the committee meeting, in which it passed.
Ryan Haney:
Thank you Chairwoman. Ryan Haney here representing US Term Limits members of the committee. The resolution simply is a statement of the Louisiana legislature to request an Article V Convention of States on the sole subject of US Term Limits to be basically talked about in a convention of States. The process would require 35 total States to pass the exact same language for any convention to actually take place. The convention, if it would be called, would have to have a consensus, a majority of States agreeing to terms, and then it would have to come back to the legislature to be ratified.
Speaker 5:
Okay. A question from Senator [inaudible 00:04:13].
Ryan Haney:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, some of the concerns I’ve heard is that maybe if we do this, it would open up a convention to look at all areas of the constitution. But it’s my understanding from speaking with you, that you believe it would only address Term Limits.
Ryan Haney:
Correct. So, where people I think have confusion is that, in our state’s country’s history, nobody’s ever got to 35 States to all agree, right? To do something. I think people are scared of the unknown. We feel very confident and I’m going to invite Aaron up if he wants to give a couple of seconds. I think it’s helpful.
Speaker 5:
Okay. If you would introduce yourself, please sir.
Aaron Dukette:
Yes. My name is Aaron Dukette, I’m with US Term Limits. I want to thank the committee for having us today. Just to speak real briefly to the concern, about if this convention can be limited. I can speak to that a number of ways. Two thirds of the States per Article V in the constitution, and I would encourage any member to read it over again, right in the constitution. It’s very clear that two thirds of the state legislatures have to pass the same resolution on the same topic, in order for this convention to be triggered. And the explicit purpose of that convention, is a predetermined within Article V itself.
Aaron Dukette:
It calls itself a convention to propose amendments. So its purpose is limited number one, to only proposals, right? So there is no effect of law within the convention itself, it simply proposes an amendment like Congress might. And then that has to go back to the state legislatures, 38 state legislatures need to ratify whatever comes out of that. So that means only 13 States are required to shoot anything down. So nothing’s open. The constitution has never opened in that process anymore than any of the other amendments we’ve had in the constitution. It’s completed with the idea of a constitutional convention, which is an open rate plenary powers convention to draft a whole new constitution.
Ryan Haney:
[crosstalk 00:06:10] that’s where a lot of the confusion has came as there’s two different ways to amend the constitution, Congress can do it. They can call a convention, and that is a different beast than what we’re talking about with the state’s rights side of it, where the States and the legislatures can call it.
Speaker 5:
And just as a reminder to the committee, last term, we did pass a resolution that many of us voted on that would set up a convention to address three issues, Term Limits, federal overreach and federal funding. So the idea of doing this separately is to say, maybe there’s not 34 States that agree with doing a convention for those three topics, but maybe there’s 34 States that agree with doing this one topic, Term Limits. Is there any more discussion on this resolution? I don’t have any other folks on the board. What’s the pleasure of the committee? Senator Milligan moves favorable on HCR 6. Any objection? Seeing none, then we’ll move HCR 6 favorable.
Philip Blumel:
Now this is really impressive for a lot of reasons. One is that, as you said, in the first floor vote in the Senate, we got shot down because all this confusion came up about how Article V works or whatever. But what we just heard in this committee meeting is that, these senators are pretty up to date on this, and of course they had Aaron there schooling them. That’s a little bit different than what we saw last time in the Senate. And of course, everyone on this committee is a Senator and is going to be voting in that final floor vote. So there’s five votes right there.
Nick Tomboulides:
Aaron by the way is former teacher who has left that vocation, but he’s still teaching. He’s educating politicians on how this works and he’s dedicating himself to passing Term Limits for Congress. So it’s incredible. And I think what will probably make the difference this timeout is, we are tenaciously doing outreach to every Senator. We are educating them on Term Limits, educating them on Article V, they’re getting calls from their constituents daily. They’re getting emails daily and we’re putting pressure on them back home in the district. And so you can make the educational argument and you can win arguments until the cows come home.
Nick Tomboulides:
But what our politicians mainly focused on? They’re focused on politics. What do the people back home-
Philip Blumel:
Getting reelected.
Nick Tomboulides:
Yeah, getting reelected. It’s their only focus. Term Limits wouldn’t exist if that weren’t true. So their word, what do people back home in the district think? We know over 80% of them want Term Limits, Democrat, Republican. It doesn’t matter. And we know that US Term Limits is publicizing their positions on this. And I’ll give you one example of that. So on the first go around, we lost to the state Senate 16, 18, it failed, and that’s in part because two senators who signed our pledge, who’d personally committed themselves to vote for it, they renaked on their word.
Philip Blumel:
Wow.
Nick Tomboulides:
The senators-
Philip Blumel:
[crosstalk 00:09:03] last minute.
Nick Tomboulides:
[00:09:04]At the last minute. Heather Cloud and Beth Mizell. This one Senator Beth Mizell, she was so shameless. She signed the pledge, our pledge and actually took a picture of herself, holding it up and smiling. This was during the campaign. So she said, “Yeah, look at me. I support Term Limits.” And then as soon as she gets reelected, as soon as she got done writing that Term Limits wave into office, she breaks her word. So it’s disgraceful behavior, but it’s exactly what you see in politics every day. The difference is, we’re not going to let her get away with it. Today, as you are downloading this podcast, as you’re listening to this podcast, mailers are landing in the district, in the mailbox of every voter in Beth Mizell’s district to tell them that she broke her word on congressional Term Limits.
Nick Tomboulides:
So at this point, we’re not attacking anybody. What we’re doing is we are telling the truth. We’re telling the voters where Beth Mizell stands on Term Limits, and we’re putting the ball in the voters court, to deal with their own Senator. It’s not us, it’s the voter she’s got to deal with now. Let’s see how that works out for her.
Ken Quinn:
Hi, this is Ken Quinn, Regional Director with US Term Limits. One of the most frustrating things we encounter sometimes when speaking with state legislators is their misunderstanding of Article V itself. By claiming that it’s a Con-Con meaning a constitutional convention that can rewrite the entire constitution. Typically they say this because they have never researched the subject themselves, and are only repeating what they’ve heard others say about it. Then there are others that use it as a smoke screen and an excuse, to stop reforms that the people want in order to protect the establishment and maintain the status quo. Now on a personal note, I oppose the idea of an Article V Convention because I was ignorant of the facts.
Ken Quinn:
I only read the propaganda that came from an anti Article V group that created fear of it as a tactic to raise money for their organization. It wasn’t until I did my own research and discovered that they were outright lying about our constitutional history that I embraced the idea, and realize that the Article V Convention, is the very tool the framers gave us to check the power of an abusive and corrupt Congress. The evidence and Article V Convention is not a Con-Con, it’s irrefutable. Any person who refuses to believe that after being presented with the facts, is either too proud to admit they were wrong, or they have a motive to deceive others for personal reasons.
Ken Quinn:
All of the records demonstrate that the framers and ratifiers of the constitution understood that Article V was not a Con-Con, and could only propose the amendments the state legislature specified in their applications. One simple example of this truth is that the framers rejected a motion giving Article V the same power as a constitutional convention. Yes, you heard that correctly. The framers rejected a Con-Con. All you need to do is read the debate at the Federal Convention on September 15th, immediately after the unanimous vote to restore the convention back into Article V, the motion was made by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and James Madison documented the following quote, “Mr. Sherman moved to strike out of Article V after legislatures, the words quote of three fourths.” Unquote.
Ken Quinn:
“And so, after the word conventions, leaving future conventions to act in this matter, like the present convention, according to circumstances.” Unquote. That motion was rejected by the framers. Had Sherman’s motion passed, it would have required a unanimous vote to make any changes to the constitution, which was one of the major problems with the Articles of Confederation and why it was never amended. The requirement for unanimous consent is a long standing practice among countries, States and parties, when they are joining a new compact, not amending one. And based on Sherman statement, Article V would have had the power to act like the present convention, a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution.
Ken Quinn:
Thankfully, the framers rejected the Con-Con and gave us a tool to check the power of a corrupt federal government. It is time we’ve finally used it and propose a Term Limits amendment for Congress to help turn that corrupt body of career politicians, into one where citizen legislators represent the American people for a short period of time. Please join us at termlimits.com and let’s make the framers proud and use Article V, as they intended us to do.
Philip Blumel:
They know that they get positive press when they will sign a pledge for Term Limits because everybody loves Term Limits. But then once they win and to get into office and to break that pledge that they made to the voters, is shameful. And you’re right. The voters now in her district this week are going to find out what she did. We don’t think that there’s going to be a last minute conversion Mizell is going to come over and vote for the Term Limits’ bill.
Nick Tomboulides:
Who does? I know I would. If I were a Senator, why would I choose this Hill to die on? If all my constituents are telling me to do it, if I’m a so called Republican and my party platform says, we need Term Limits on Congress. I don’t see any reason for someone to stand against that. It doesn’t seem logical really. So it’s hard to explain, but I can’t get inside her head and see what she’s thinking. I’m just hoping she takes the rational approach and realizes path of least resistance is to vote for it. And if you really care about fixing Congress, why not vote for it? A vote against this as a vote for the corrupt status quo in Washington, and everyone is against that.
Philip Blumel:
And US Term Limits is always fair. We let voters know when someone signs a pledge for Term Limits. We let voters know when someone breaks a pledge for Term Limits, and we’ll let voters know if she and others vote for the Term Limits Convention Bill. So it’s not a matter of promoting a politician or attacking a politician, it’s just about letting voters know what those politicians, what actions they take on the issue of Term Limits. And that’s it. So, we’ll see how it goes. I’m excited about the vote. Like I said, it would be really anticlimactic to have it be just like last episode, but I’m thinking this ending’s going to be a little bit different.
Nick Tomboulides:
I’m hoping so. And we’re not just talking to those two senators. If those senators changed their vote, then you’re at 18, but you really need 20. So, we’re also doing outreach to the senators who had missed the initial vote. There were at least two of them who said they might support it. We’re doing outreach to Democrats in the state Senate, all of them. Because, in the state house, you had this huge disparity between the house and the Senate, where in the house, a majority of the Democrats voted for it, in the Senate, none of the Democrats voted for it. So, what’s up with that? Why couldn’t we get a single Democrat in the Senate?
Nick Tomboulides:
But we’re talking to them, we’re working on them. Sometimes people will call us and they’ll say, “Well, you people at US Term Limits are not team players.” Because we’re not acting like loyal Republicans, or we’re not acting like loyal Democrats. Well, we’re team players. But what folks sometimes fail to understand is our team is Term Limits. Our team is reforming the entire system, not taking one side or the other. So that’s what this is all about. Let’s hope they see the light.
Philip Blumel:
We’re on the citizens team, not the politicians team.
Nick Tomboulides:
Right.
Philip Blumel:
The Kentucky Primaries are on Tuesday this week. Former Marine, Amy McGrath, isn’t the only candidate challenging Mitch McConnell for the Kentucky seat in the US Senate. Charles Booker is a 35 year old African American state representative, who has been endorsed by the Kentucky Herald leader, Senator Bernie Sanders and representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In the last week’s podcast, we contrasted Amy McGrath’s support for Term Limits, including signing US Term Limits’ pledge, with Mitch McConnell’s long and active opposition to Term Limits. As he shared last week on the online program, The Root, Booker also favors empowering citizens against entrenched incumbency.
Sperker 9:
We talk about Mitch McConnell being a sellout. We know that politics changes people, and we know that, or it helps you involve in a wide range of ways. Right? And so, that experience it does it to everybody. What are you doing to prepare yourself to not sell out, once you do give the seat?
Speaker 10:
Yeah. I mean, first of all, this is why I believe in Term Limits first of all, if you are in government for a long time, you just naturally can become a part of the problem. Even if you are well intentioned, it comes out of self preservation. That’s why it was easy for me to not run for reelection. This is not my seat. This is the people seat, and I need to be doing the work about helping folks, not trying to build up titles or mess my career. I’ll be fine. I don’t need to be in elected office to have a career. I’m doing this because I want things to change.
Philip Blumel:
Thanks for joining us for another weekly episode of No Uncertain Terms. With elections coming, your state legislator needs to hear from you. Go to termlimits.com and under the current actions tab, choose contact your state legislator. Put in your address, and you can send an email to both of your state house and Senate rep to sign the Term Limits pledge. That’s termlimits.com, under the current actions tab. Thank you. We’ll be back next week.
Speaker 2:
If you like what you’re hearing, please subscribe and leave a review. The No Uncertain Terms Podcast can be found on iTunes, Stitcher, YouTube, and now Google Play.
Speaker 11:
Shriek.
Speaker 12:
I wrote a public service announcement by the way, should I read my public service announcement? It’s very brief, and it’s stupid but, we’re in uncertain and unprecedented times, challenging times even. There is a great disease taking over our society and that is, career politicians. I want all our listeners to make sure they wear their Term Limits face mask in the presence of career politicians, and maintain six years of electoral distance, keep career politicians far, far away from your capital dome, to ensure the health of your Republic. Just a quick public service announcement, those are US Term Limits guidelines for fighting the disease of career politicians.