by John Harris
In a constitutional republic with a so-called conservative Governor in a “red state” like Tennessee, few would expect that the Governor would be conspiring with gun control advocates and conducting “secret” meetings away from the capitol in order to craft a gun control package, including his demand that Tennessee enact a Red Flag law, to be revealed perhaps only once “his” Special Session is called? Well, if you are a Second Amendment advocate who has watched this particular Governor and several in the Republican legislative caucus over the last 13 years, you might be one to expect exactly that kind of shenanigans.
The Tennessean released on July 28, 2023, a detailed investigative report that explored these issues. The report confirms what numerous conservative Legislators have reported to TFA over the last few months – that Governor Lee is making a full court press to enact a broad gun control package that includes several gun control proposals – not just a Red Flag law – to be released perhaps only after the Special Session starts in just a few weeks. Crafting public policy in “Communist style” secret meetings is not open government nor, for that matter, a government conduct that should be trusted.
Entire story including names of Legislators who are involved and a copy of gun control proposals presented by Sen. Campbell.
Tennesseans must take seriously the real threat that some elected officials, in addition to Bill Lee, are now trying to use the Covenant Murders to advance their own gun control agendas. If you want to help with the effort to protect your rights as required by the Second Amendment from radicals who reject the Constitution’s mandates, go to www.redflagdown.com today!
Your involvement is critical to help stop Bill Lee’s proposed Red Flag legislation and the gun control agenda of some Legislators.
Please take action now and help the TFALAC (a state political action committee) raise funds for its #RedFlagDown mission to produce radio spots, social media campaigns, and other “get out the word” measures to stop Bill Lee’s insistence that the state of Tennessee should be taking guns away from lawful gun owners in violation of the Constitution.
– – –
John Harris is the executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association.
Photo “Bill Lee” by Bill Lee. Background Photo “Tennessee Capitol” by FaceMePLS. CC BY 2.0.
If the county GOP would step up to the plate and start
Holding these RINOs accountable and stop rubber stamping them would also help stop this madness.
In reply to Mr. levelheadedconservative, I will say the following:
The Tennessee gubernatorial two-year term plan with up to three such successive terms that was in place from the beginning of Statehood in 1796 to the 1954 election for governor IMO worked well for these almost one hundred sixty years.
(This plan was replaced by the four-year gubernatorial term whereby a governor WAS NOT allowed to succeed himself {the plan that was adopted in Convention on May 19, 1953 which was presided over by former Governor Prentice Cooper, approved at general election on November 3, 1953, and proclaimed by Governor Frank Clement November 19, 1953}. This plan remained in effect until it was replaced twenty-five years later by the current four-year term whereby a governor IS allowed to succeed himself {i.e., adopted in Convention in October 1977, approved at general election in March 7, 1978, and proclaimed by Governor Ray Blanton on March 31, 1978}.)
Of course, the obvious problem with two-year gubernatorial terms is that a candidate for the office must raise enormous sums of money to seek the two-year office, and the two-year term also means that a successful gubernatorial candidate seeking re-election must fund-raise almost continually. To me this is a massive invitation for corruption, OR a gubernatorial candidate must be independently wealthy. Neither prospect IMO is very healthy for the body politic. So, arguably, the two-year plan above had ‘run its course’ when it was replaced in 1953.
IMO another major problem with the above plan adopted in 1953 is that Tennessee history demonstrates that IF allowed to run for re-election, Tennessee governors WILL run for re-election.
(For example, when Frank Clement was first elected to a two-year gubernatorial term in 1952, and then was re-elected to a four-year term in 1954, that meant that when he was again re-elected to his third term in 1962 he had served ten years as governor by that term’s end in January 1967, a period longer than all but two {Tennessee’s first Governor, John Sevier, who served for about eleven and a half years, and Governor William Carroll, in the 1820s and the 1830s, who served for twelve years} of the State’s now fifty-one governors, including the State’s territorial governor. And Clement was 49 years of age when he died in an automobile accident in 1969. At that time he had already announced his candidacy for a fourth term as governor in the 1970 gubernatorial election which if he had won would have made him the longest serving governor in the State’s history. No doubt, Frank Clement, had he lived, meant to be governor of our State for a long, long time yet to come.
Furthermore, IMO the ‘leap frog’ game that Clement and Governor Buford Ellington ‘played’ from 1955 to 1971 was injurious to our State. If nothing else, these two governors of our State made our State General Assembly woefully subservient to them. One obvious way that they did this was by controlling the information concerning the workings of Tennessee state government that is vitally important to the enactment of legislation. There were other ways, some insidious, which most legislative political incumbents certainly understand. It was only after the deaths of these two men {Clement in 1969 as aforesaid, and Ellington at 64 years of age in 1972} that the Tennessee General Assembly began the process of becoming an equal partner with Tennessee’s Governor in the management of the Tennessee’s business. IMO the practices of those days must never be allowed to happen again in our State.)
Moreover, the history of Tennessee’s governors since the 1978 amendment to the 1870 Constitution, as aforesaid, has been replete with problems. (Can’t you imagine the damage that would have been caused to our State if Governor Ray Blanton had been re-elected in 1978. Then, there is the iron-fisted politicization and stubbornness of the eight years of Governor Ned Ray McWherter. Then, can anyone forget the foolish stubbornness of Governor Don Sundquist and his constant demands for a state income tax. Likewise, to a greater or a lesser degree, depending upon the man and his administration, there were the problems of eight years of Governors Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam. And now, there is Governor Bill Lee and his ‘gun grabbing’ push for a ‘red flag’ law which has already been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.) It just does not stop with our ‘eight year’ governors. And if not changed, expect many, many more such problems in the years to come.
In conclusion, a four-year gubernatorial term of office seems to provide the ‘right’ balance of stability together with limited tenure of office. IMO this is a system which has worked well in Tennessee’s adjoining sister-state of Virginia which holds a very fond place for me. (True, Virginia’s four-year governors are allowed to seek re-election although they may not directly succeed themselves. But in Virginia there has developed a tradition of effectively ONE and DONE that most politicians in Virginia are loathe to ignore at their peril. {Only six of Virginia’s seventy-four governors since 1776 have served more than one term as governor.} Since the last governor elected at the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s, only one governor of Virginia has been re-elected {i.e., Mills Godwin elected as a Democrat in 1965, and re-elected as a Republican in 1973—Virginia governors are elected in odd-numbered years} to office although others have tried.) But Tennessee does not have such a tradition, and unless made mandatory by express constitutional limit, as aforesaid, Tennessee history shows that such a limitation will not be honored by Tennessee’s ambitious gubernatorial candidates. IMO a ONE and DONE policy for Tennessee governors would be beneficial to the body politic of our State.
Finally, I apologize to the reader for the length of this reply comment, but I have not known how to say any briefer what I thought needed to be said.
That 1st comment was in response to John B.
Separately, perhaps someone (or group) with the financial means and ability could file an immediate lawsuit against the special session when called. Said lawsuit could request an immediate stay on the order while pursuing potential violations of open meeting laws (which I am admittedly not knowledgeable on in TN).
I like the concept, John. It makes me wonder, however, what the difference would be between a one-and-done and the 2nd term of two. Maybe going back to two year terms would allow voters an opportunity to make changes sooner, if needed. Two consecutive two year terms would essentially limit the Governor to the same potential service time as a single 4 year term while allowing the voters to make adjustments if they see fit.
In any case, there is always the “lame duck” element of the position.
As I have said before on this website, this kind of ‘stuff’ will NOT STOP until the State of Tennessee gets rid of its ‘Two Term’ (i.e., Eight Year) Governors. Tennessee’s ‘Second Term’ Governors feel ‘free as a bird’ to do whatever they want (whether the people of Tennessee want it or not) in their ‘Second Term’. And generally speaking, Tennessee’s ‘Second Term’ Governors just cause all kinds of trouble for everyone concerned.
When I was a very young boy, Tennessee’s Governors were constitutionally limited to two-year terms. The rule then was that there was a limit of three such consecutive terms before Tennessee Governors had to step aside (e.g., Prentice Cooper from 1939 to 1945). This had been the rule from the beginning of Tennessee statehood in 1796 (i.e., see the 1796 Constitution, the 1834 Constitution, and the 1870 Constitution).
Then someone (i.e., Frank Clement?) got the ‘bright idea’ that this scheme was just too limiting (i.e., limiting on whom?), and the decision was made to increase a gubernatorial term in Tennessee from two years to four years. But while a Tennessee Governor could run for re-election under this plan (e.g., Frank Clement received a special ‘carve out’), such Second Term would be non-consecutive (i.e., the 1953 Amendment to the 1870 Constitution). Then Frank Clement and Buford Ellington played ‘leap frog’ as Tennessee’s Governor a couple of times each until the scheme was again changed by the actions of someone else (i.e., Ray Blanton?).
This is when the rule first appears that a Tennessee Governor but may be elected to two consecutive four-year terms before being term-limited. This occurred by a further amendment to the 1870 State Constitution effective in March 1978 (i.e., adopted in Convention in October 1977, approved at general election in March 1978, and proclaimed by the Governor on March 31, 1978).
I have tried to keep the foregoing lengthy and involved constitutional history succinct. However, in closing, let me add that I think that Tennessee’s Constitution should be amended to limit Tennessee Governors to one four-year term of office for the life of that person, this amendment to be effective immediately upon approval of it by the people. ONE and DONE!
A bill to this effect could be introduced in the 2024 Legislative Session, and timely passed then. Another bill to the same effect could be introduced in the 2025 Legislative Session, and passed then. The voters of Tennessee would then vote on the twice approved proposed amendment in the 2026 November General Election, and if approved by the people in that vote, the constitutional amendment would be effective immediately. The man, or woman, elected as Tennessee’s new Governor in 2026, and thereafter forevermore, would serve ONLY ONE FOUR-YEAR TERM, AND THEN LEAVE OFFICE! ONE and DONE! (See the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Article XI, Section 3.)