It's hard to imagine a worse idea. If you want to amend the Constitution it includes provisions for that purpose. Convening a Constitutional Convention will simply destroy the Constitution that we have and leave us open to any wildeyed agenda proposed. I might have a different view if I saw statemen on the scene of the stature of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and others. But instead I see a cabal of venal climbers and opportunists. Let saner heads conclude that a Constitutional Convention would be a terrible idea.
FOLLOW UP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The author has obviously never the Constitution. Article V, the amendment process, requires a convention for proposing amendments, nothing more. Thus a "constitutional convention" cannot be held as he states. In short, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
ReplyDeleteHe also doesn't seem to know a convention is not an "idea." It is a constitutional requirement. He obviously doesn't know the Constitution has been satisfied. You can read the over 700 applications from 49 states for a convention call at www.foavc.org. Therefore Congress must call.
Before listening to people like this who don't know what they are talking about, check out FOAVC which bases its statements on public record.
The same kind of provision was the case for the Articles of Confederation and it led not to an amendment of those articles but their elimination. By what protection does he think that calling another Constitutional Convention can be limited.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that it might be headed off in the adoption process, but history says that there is a risk and it is questionable why it should be taken.