- Closer look at Article V
- 3 step process
- The convention has all of the authority to decide once convened. Congress can set the details of the convention- such as who will be the delegates, and where they will meet. But Congress nor the states can tell the Convention what to do.
You can't tell an Article V what to do after it has convened. Congress can influence it as much as they can, but once it meets, they have no further control. This entails the risk of a runaway convention that may do anything, including overturning the entire system of government. It could be a revolutionary act. That is the risk. The reward is hoped for, such as a better government, but it is only a hope. Something may happen to dash those hopes.
Those who attempt to frighten everybody with such warnings should also keep in mind that a runaway government could also usurp the Constitution. So, what's the difference?
2 comments:
The main thing to fear is the status quo two-party plutocracy. Article V must be used, just as the Founders anticipated, because no sensible person can trust the federal government anymore to serve true public interests.
Many people react with fear to the idea of a Constitutional Convention but they do so without thinking the process through. Opponents of a con-con present the idea that such a convention would be a runaway convention that could propose anything. While this is true, proposing amendments and ratifying them are two separate, deliberative processes.
Further, these two separate processes are cleverly designed to prevent foolish and dangerous amendments. So, sure, as an example, a con-con could propose some whacked out idea like a national balanced budget amendment. However, the deliberation process during the convention would have a chance to fully vet such an idea. It is highly unlikely that once the unintended consequences of such an amendment were expressed and debated, that it would be offered to the states for ratification. Even if it were offered, the ratification process, which would occur across the nation in every chamber of the states' legislatures, it is unlikely it would be ratified, especially once the states realized that in another dire economic situation, similar to the one we are now in, the states would see their budgets reduced so drastically, because the Federal Government couldn't just print money and distribute it to help the states improve their economies, staving off complete collapse, that the states' vetting process would not allow such a foolish amendment to pass.
There is little to nothing to fear about a con-con. We have historical evidence of that since it was the first con-con that produced the document we now live by. That convention was called to improve the Articles of Confederation and it, too, exceeded the boundaries set by those who called for that convention. And look what we got - a Constitution that, for a significant part, has served us well.
Those who think we don't have the competence to craft a better document than the one we have, after 223 years of experience, are likely the same people who think that we, the People, should still be treated like children as were the masses back in 1787. That con-con was afraid to directly address slavery. They had little to no respect for women, blacks, Native Americans and even white males who didn't own property. Of course, for what they did accomplish they deserve the respect we now give them but to think we aren't more capable and competent now is to roll over and allow corporations and, proportionally speaking, a very small elite group of plutocrats to run roughshod over our rights as they continue to limit our freedoms of expression and our civil rights.
No, the problem isn't one of a runaway convention. The problem will be the same one we have today and that is a Supreme Court, captured and manipulated by powerful vested interests, who actively and intentionally interpret the Constitution and twist the intentions of the Framers. Still, whatever would come of a con-con would very likely be an improvement on the document that has gotten us this far.
Anyone who knows history knows that one of the Founders (Jefferson) proposed the idea of revisiting the Constitution every so often to improve it. The Constitution, as evidenced by the very existence of Article V, was meant to evolve by and through the very power of the sovereign force of the People. If we are too afraid to use that power as a collective body, then we will leave it to the few who currently use fear to keep us from exercising the very rights our Founders were careful, considerate and insightful enough to give us.
Post a Comment