Gary Franks: Changes Democrats want would require constitutional amendments

Democrats have had a pattern of offering people false hope. Remember, the threat of sanctions would deter Russia from invading Ukraine. We know how that worked out.

“Elect me president and I will get rid of covid” — a phrase President Joe Biden campaigned on. How did that turn out?

Compare 400,000 deaths under former President Donald Trump with where we are today under Biden’s watch: well over a million covid deaths, with hundreds still dying daily.

Then, there’s guns. The current administration has proposed a ban on purchasing certain weapons when there are over 400 million guns already on America’s streets.

Last but not least, inflation. The Biden administration tells us it is transitory. It will soon pass. Instead, it has continued to climb to a rate of 9.1%, and may climb higher.

All were false hopes.

Today, Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would like to use the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v. Wade to stimulate voters, especially suburban women, to turn out in droves and elect Democrats to the House and Senate.

What they fail to concede is the fact that even if the Democrats were able to muster enough votes to pass a codification of Roe v. Wade and get a rules change to allow for an exception or permanent removal of the Senate filibuster, they would not be able to make it the law of the land.

Why not? Because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling. The court ruled that it would be unconstitutional for there to be a federal law since abortion is an issue for states to decide.

Thus, Biden and Pelosi are being disingenuous in their hopes of harnessing voter anger to get more Democrats elected to Congress.

What would be true, however, is to make it a goal to get more Democrats elected to the state legislatures and governors’ mansions. That could help their cause. Hopefully, that is what they meant, though it was a confusing objective if intended.

During the 1990s Republicans wanted to give the president line-item veto powers. As a member of Congress at the time, I supported it. It was one of the 10 items in the so-called “Contract with America” put forth by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Army. But even after it passed, it went nowhere. The court ruled it unconstitutional, as it would have altered the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.

I was also disgusted when Americans who wanted to desecrate our flag — a symbol thousands of our citizens gave their lives to defend — would not be punished for a federal offense. I supported a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. That measure, however, did not pass.

I also felt strongly that the federal government should be required to balance the budget. I ardently supported what was called “A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution,” which would have required Congress to do so yearly. This too, failed.

It is exceedingly difficult to pass a constitutional amendment. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve it and 38 states (three-fourths of them) must ratify it.

The women in Congress who today represent a substantial increase from the past (with many in leadership positions), are working on an Equal Rights Amendment as of March 2021 in support of women.

It was initially introduced to Congress in 1923. But because Congress, which approved the measure, attached a seven-year time span for states to ratify it, by that deadline it fell three states short. Subsequently, it never became an amendment. Thus, ERA advocates would need to restart the process.

That is not easy to do. It is not supposed to be easy to do. But our forefathers recognized that there would be times when it would be necessary, because otherwise the power per the 10th Amendment would devolve to the states.

There is a faction of America that seems concerned about comments from Justice Clarence Thomas on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which no other justice agreed with. He spoke of related areas that could also be reviewed by the court in the future; they include contraception, same-sex relationships and marriages. As a preemptive strike against Thomas’ ideas, a constitutional amendment covering “Personal Rights” could be drafted for consideration. But, again, it would need the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate, as well as the ratification by at least 38 state legislatures.

The last constitutional amendment approved by Congress, and ratified by the required number of state legislatures, occurred in 1991. I was in Congress at the time. It prohibited Congress from changing the salaries of members of Congress (House and Senate) during their terms in office.

All this goes to show that pushing to amend the Constitution is a hard road to take, but it is a bona fide way to fight for change.

Giving people false hope, however, can come back to bite you.