By Jason Spencer
It is the month of September and many of us think of paying tribute to America’s workers by recognizing their efforts on Labor Day. There is also another significant date this month which is important to be aware of in our Republic’s history: September 17, 1787. On that day, the Constitution of the United States was signed during the nation’s first and only Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). Referred to as a “miracle’ by our founding fathers, our Constitution is now celebrated 223 years later. Created in 2004, September 17 (Constitution Day) became a national holiday.
Today, much debate about the Constitution and the role of limited government dominates political discussions in America because of the unadulterated exhibition of raw, unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government. This great awakening has led many in the Tea Party Movement to explore ways to restore the ideas of limited government. Specifically, many conservatives, constitutionalist, and libertarians within the movement are raising the prospect of calling a constitutional convention as a way to restore good government by invoking Article V to amend the Constitution. The people have lost faith in the political will of Congress to propose Amendments that would truly benefit them. Even state legislatures across the country have called for a Con-Con to force the federal government to adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment. This country has not had a Con-Con since the first one convened in 1787. Should this be the strategy of those who champion limited government? Should the Movement encourage Congress to submit specific amendments for ratification to the states instead?
Take a moment to look up Article V of the Constitution and read it carefully. According to Article V there are only two ways that amendments can be proposed to the Constitution: (1) by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress; or (2) on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments (commonly referred to as a “constitutional convention” or “Con-Con”). The second method has never been used. After amendments are proposed by either method, they then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or by three-fourths of special state conventions. According to Article V, Congress decides which ratification process will be used.
While Article V offers a mechanism to essentially by-pass Congress to amend the Constitution, it does not confront the primary problem that ‘limited government types’ may find appealing. The main problem is that the three branches of government do not adhere to the Constitution as intended by the Founders. For example, it has also been proposed by some in the Movement to invoke Article V just to get Congress scared enough to follow through on proposing various amendments that would include term limits for legislators. Simple amendment of the Constitution will not be adequate to bring government back under control. Therefore, those of us in the Movement who find a Con-Con appealing must understand the major downsides to invoking Article V.
Herein lies the problem with the calling of a Con-Con: Once convened, the convention would be at liberty to consider and propose whatever amendments to the Constitution it deemed beneficial. By doing so, this could lead to a “runaway convention” in the same way the first Con-Con ignored its initial charter, which was to revise the Articles of Confederation on matters of interstate commerce. Its charge was not to write an entire new Constitution and system of government. There are no rules in the Constitution or in any law to limit a Con-Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. Furthermore, there is no way to control a Con-Con in advance or to require it to consider only one subject, regardless if the application specifically delineates what subject matter is to be considered. Great latitude on any given matter is implied to exist when delegates convene. We were very lucky to have had brilliant minds at the first convention drafting our Constitution. Frankly, I do not see very many individuals that are the caliber of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Patrick Henry to give us a product that is to protect individual freedoms and liberties.
With all the special interest groups and bitter partisan hacks on both sides of the isle that we have today, a Con-Con would be political chaos, pandemonium and a spectacle of pure evil. In 1788, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” warned us directly about calling another constitutional convention:
‘If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having greater latitude than the Congress.... It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides ... [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.... Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.’ [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]
James Madison’s arguments for opposing an Article V constitutional convention are very convincing. The Tea Party Movement would do well to heed the warning echoed over two hundred years ago. There are too many progressives, special interest and “individuals of insidious views” ready to completely re-write the Constitution into a modern day Communist Manifesto. Let us dismiss the calls for a Con-Con and appreciate what we currently have. While the Constitution is not perfect, I would surely hate to see the meaning of Constitution Day changer forever, especially for the worse.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Jason Spencer is a Health Care professional in Southeastern Georgia and a leader in the TEA Party movement in the area. He is the Republican candidate for the Georgia House of Representatives in District #180. His campaign web address is www.spencer4georgia.com. His articles are presented by THE CLARION ISSUE: Counter Editorials and Opinions on Current Events and Attitudes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What this argument neglects is that any proposed amendments during a "con-con" must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This virtually assures that a "run-away" convention will not happen. For a more detailed discussion on all the reasons why a con-con would not turn into a runaway, look at the following article by Professor Robert G. Natelson, at the Goldwater institute -- http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005. He makes very compelling arguments that negate the premise of your post.
Chris, as stated in my article...
"The second method has never been used. After amendments are proposed by either method, they then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, OR by three-fourths of special state conventions".
If states choose to use conventions for ratification rather than the legislature, all it would take is special interest groups to influence who gets appointed to those state conventions thus bypassing the will of the state legislature and the people. The people can not influence those in the convention...they can influence their state reps and senators. You are assuming that the only method to ratify an Amendment at the state level is only through the state legislature.
The founders put this provision in the Constitution because they new that getting things approved or ratified in state legislatures were "too slow"...that is why they came up with the alternative "ratifying state conventions".
Post a Comment