As the printing press was to our nation’s Founders, the Internet is to millions of patriots today. Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet’s other social media platforms offer an incredible array of innovative tools. These tools enable anyone to freely reach out and touch potentially millions of people. In short, social media has become a powerful political outreach tool for conservative activists.

The PonderPicks below highlight several free social media political action guides produced by American Majority, an organization dedicated to encouraging conservatives to get involved within the political system. Beginning with the local level of government, American Majority supports limited government and free markets and seeks to energize citizens to bring about political change. One way to effectively produce change is through effective online communication — especially that involving social media.

===

Twitter is a real-time information network that lets people share brief messages freely around the world. It is useful for instantly breaking news, making announcements, and spreading links to articles, blog posts, videos, photos, and other online material. American Majority produced a special 41 page free guide that covers the basics of Twitter, “tweeting,” and how to use this social media tool effectively for political activism. You can download “Twittivism: Guide to Twitter and Activism” for free.

===

Another wildly popular and free social media tool is Facebook. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide use Facebook daily to keep in touch and share information with each other. Facebook makes it easy to share comments, videos, articles, blogs, and other resources with others. Because Facebook also provides a wealth of free communication and support tools for groups, many political organizations and candidates are using this social media tool in lieu of establishing a web site. Others create a Facebook “fan page” or integrate their website with Facebook to benefit from the free social tools available.

American Majority has created a free 28 page Facebook  Guide to assist with setting up a Facebook profile and an organization fan page. Download your copy of American Majority’s free beginner’s guide for Facebook now and learn how you can use Facebook to expand your political outreach efforts.

===

There are other American Majority Guides designed with conservative political activists in mind. One powerful tool is the press release. Designed to be easy to use, American Majority’s free press release template establishes the framework and information needed to create professional releases that you can send to various media outlets.

Another online tool used for political activism are wikis which are simply websites that the public is allowed (and encouraged) to edit. Probably the most popular wiki in the world is Wikipedia which is an online encyclopedia that rivals the Encyclopedia Britannica in scope and accuracy. Three political wikis recommended by American Majority and available for public editing are Sunshine Review, Ballotpedia, and Judgepedia.

===

Engage our culture and exercise your liberty through the social media resources referenced above. Encourage others to support the American ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free markets. Please follow PonderPost via Twitter and like PonderPost on Facebook. Please share your insights relating to this information below or contact us with your suggestions for future PonderPicks.

The federal government is often lobbied to address a variety of pressing social issues not authorized by the Constitution. While such pressure is common among those arguing for widespread federal intervention to create fairness, safety, and other desired outcomes, it is strangely also common among many self-proclaimed proponents of small government. How can this competing juxtaposition of political principles exist within one who claims to support the Constitution’s limits on federal power?

There are a few possible reasons for this rather common occurrence. For starters, it could be because most people tend to take advantage of something that favors them even if it means “bending the rules” a bit. Given this scenario, they might support federal intervention when the outcome leads to something they benefit from or personally like. However, if that be the case, then maybe such individuals should reexamine their values and see if they really believe in the Constitution and its limited government requirements. Regrettably, after such an evaluation, some will find that they actually are not interested in expanding personal liberty but are instead seeking to govern outcomes and behavior.

Others, though, will evaluate their inconsistencies and see the folly of their ways. They now realize they had taken the path of least resistance toward a flawed outcome, the result of which was another step down the slippery slope of big government. Reforming themselves, they will do the heavy lifting necessary to correct their thinking and align their viewpoints with the Constitution. In diagnosing their mistake, they realize they failed to ask the right constitutional questions before seeking a government solution.

So what are the right constitutional questions to ask when evaluating the government’s role in addressing social problems? To explore this issue, let us look at a real problem that divides many on the limited-government side of the equation — drunk driving.

Few people of any political persuasion would argue that driving while drunk is a good thing. Period. In fact, most people can share personal horror stories about death and destruction caused by a drunk driver. That negative being the case, is it not then a good thing for government to severely crack down on such drivers? If so, would it not be easier to lobby one government — the federal government — to pass a law that would address this issue once and for all? Would not a single federal standard makes sense compared to the alternative of having to lobby all 50 legislatures across the country for the same thing?

These are reasonable questions that make logical sense to most people. Due to public awareness and outcry over the problems of drunk driving, enough people acted on these sentiments to do just that in 2000. The result was a new federal law signed by President Clinton that prodded the States to adopt a 0.08% and above blood-alcohol level standard for defining drunk driving. The States, faced with losing federal highway funds if they did not comply with this new standard, quickly enacted their own laws establishing this standard.

Sounds good so far, right? Well, that depends on how well one knows the Constitution. Three constitutional questions immediately come to mind regarding this touchy issue:

1. Is drunk driving a state or a federal issue?

2. Where does the Constitution empower the federal government to create national standards to penalize drunk driving?

3. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to mandate the States to adopt any drunk driving standard?

While legitimate constitutional questions should also be asked about the very existence of “federal highway funds” and the withholding of them as punishment, that is left for another article.  The important question within this context has to do with whether drunk driving is a state or a federal issue. If it is a state issue, then the federal government is not authorized to act and should remain silent — no matter how good or heartwarming the outcome would be for them to intervene. Unconstitutional federal intervention, even when done under the best of intentions, is simply wrong. Not only does it establish a bad precedent, but it leads to additional abuse as federal power is amassed at the expense of individual liberty and State sovereignty.

The Tenth Amendment allows the States great latitude and flexibility. This means they can act on many social problems that the federal government is prohibited from addressing. Since the Constitution prohibits federal intervention on many fronts, problems like drunk driving can and should only be addressed at state and/or local levels.

Ludwig von Mises Institute President Lew Rockwell explored this issue in his November 3, 2000 article entitled “Legalize Drunk Driving.” While Rockwell points out many legal problems with drunk driving laws in general and this federal one in particular, he concludes his article with a final point against the 2000 federal drunk driving law:

It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content – the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states . . .

So, as readers, your challenge is to ask the right constitutional questions about everything the federal government has done, is doing, or even considers doing. Is the matter in question a State or a federal issue? If a State issue then why is the federal government involved at all?

The answers to these questions can sometimes mean more short-run work for you as you are forced to lobby multiple state legislatures to produce national change; however, in the long-run it is a good thing. This process not only preserves the Founders’ constitutional balance of power, but many find that after asking the right constitutional questions a better and more effective solution emerges — one that both addresses the problem and preserves liberty.

Image Credit: Rob Wiltshire

Americans, we are not without power in the fight to safeguard liberty against federal government growth and encroachment. Our Founders distrusted strong centralized government. To allow for needed change and as an additional safeguard against federal abuse, they authorized both the Congress and the States to initiate the process of amending the Constitution. This powerful tool enables the People to lobby their elected representatives and/or their state legislature for a change to the United States Constitution. Collectively, the People and the States are supreme over the federal government.

The procedure for amending the Constitution is specified under Article V of the Constitution. A quick read will identify the only two amendment procedures allowed: The proposed amendment must originate either by (1) a two thirds vote of both chambers of Congress or through (2) the establishment of a “Convention to Propose Amendments” mandated by the Legislatures in two thirds of the States:

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 . . . (Article V of the Constitution)

The amendment process does not end here. Proposed amendments must be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of all States before they become part of the Constitution. After ratification an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution and is the supreme law of the land.

Because amending the Constitution is a very serious move, the amendment process was made difficult by design. In the more than 230 years of governance under our Constitution, hundreds of amendments have been proposed but only 27 have been ratified. Surprisingly, none of these Amendments were the result of a Convention to Propose Amendments.

The amendment power is real and allows the People and the States to take action and force significant change on the federal government. Thankfully, in their wisdom, the Founders created this powerful tool for we the People.

We can reduce the scope of our federal government. Let us take this authority seriously and use it!

Additional Information

For an informative overview of the Amendment process in general and a more in-depth discussion of the Convention to Propose Amendments power, see Rob Natelson’s article entitled “A Safeguard Against Federal Abuse.”