Calling a Constitutional Convention

http://www.american-partisan.com ^ | October 6, 2003 | by Bruce Walker

[Sgt_Schultze]

A convention would throw open the Constitution to major overhaul. New rights to education, medical care, affordable housing, living wages, clean environment and abortion would be embraced by all those who see such things as rights. A convention would be a feast to the left. I vote NO to a convention. Could our current crop of representatives be relied upon to write a document as enduring as the current Constitution? If the answer is no, how could you expect them to improve upon it?

[Support Free Republic]

---

God Bless America! God Bless This Man!
	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON! It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Convening a constitutional convention would wind up swapping the perfectly good constitution we now have with the Communist Manifesto.

It would be three ring circus where the self-proclaimed victims who screamed the loudest would get the most goodies.

[randog]

Recognizing that Congress might grow remote and isolated from the public will, the Constitution provides ways around Congress in amending the Constitution. Two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call a constitutional convention.

Why motivation would state legislators, many who aspire to become congressmen and senators, have to de-feather their future beds?

[Greybird]

There are two methods of adopting an amendment, but only one has ever been used: the legislatures of three-quarters of the states approve the amendment.

The 21st Amendment, which repealed federal alcohol Prohibition (the 18th Amendment) and permitted its being done by the states, was proposed to and adopted by "conventions in the several states," not by the legislatures. The author should have known this. (The chances for ratification were seen as far more likely by using a relatively more populist path.) It makes one wonder about his other constitutional arguments.

[Centurion2000]

A convention would throw open the Constitution to major overhaul.

And you can bet the FIRST Amendment would be to render the BOR 2nd amendment neutered with excessive clauses and exceptions to a simple RIGHT TO BE ARMED.

[El Gato]

The resort to extra-legal means will only empower the Left,

Extra-legal does not imply extra Constitutional. Many "laws" are themselves "unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution are the courts given the power to "interpret" the Constitution, nor base any decisions on constitutionality of laws on anything other than the Constitution itself. They are not to use previous decisions if those decision conflicted with the plain meaning of the Constitution, nor with actions of courts or legislatures in other countries. They do both all the time of course.

So who is it that is acting "extra-legally". There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, save perhaps the 16th and 17th amendments (along with the 18th, but that one was repealed) passed just under 100 years ago. One Congress could, if the will could be found, repeal those two amendments and there is little doubt the states would ratify the repealing amendment (or amendments). Surely the examples of Clinton, Schummer, Fienstein, Boxer and others argue eloquently against popular election of Senators, and besides, how much worse could the state legislatures do anyway?

[El Gato]

Why motivation would state legislators, many who aspire to become congressmen and senators, have to de-feather their future beds?

The prospect of getting plucked in their current "bed"? That and the "rooftop vote".

[GeronL]

If you want to limit liberal spending, an amendment would do that. A Convention will allow the leftists to overhaul the Constitution and make it into a Marxist documents

[festus]

NEVER NEVER NEVER open the constitution to a convention.

Amend it maybe, rarely.

But NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER let em have a go at the original.

By the time that convention was finshed you might be better off moving somewhere like Russia where you would be, by comparison, free.......

[Held_to_Ransom]

The last time a convention of the states was called, the southern states went instead to Montgomery to commit treason.

In any case, Woodrow Wilson destroyed the Constitution.

[festus]

One of my fav quotes is "The Constitution May Be Flawed But Its a Whole Lot Better Than What We Have Now" essentially meaning we have basically put the thing in the shredder and make it all up as we go now.........

As to the Montgomery bit........ One has to observe that the boys in Montgomery would not have let us descend into the huge overreaching federal goverment that we have today.

Every time you disagree with the big central federal goverment crowd you get accused of treason......

[HitmanLV]

You are right.

There is no way that the leftists wouldn't take advantage of such an opportunity and somehow much up the works.

We can amend without a new convention. If we so choose to, that's the way to go.

[Unknowing]

To paraphrase Franklin, we have a Republic, if we can keep it. Let's keep it!

So, Denver is right up there with Des Moines and Little Rock -- how about that.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Didn't read the article, but I don't think modifying the constitution is needed. The uncomplicated, plainly worded document we have now seems fine to me. It's hard to imagine a mass revision done in more modern legalese being any clearer.

The problems would remain - the activist/statist judiciary imagining hidden intentions, and the electorate letting them get away with it.

[Consort]

The catchphrase is: "It's the Liberal Judges, stupid."

[The South Texan]

No way! You could kiss your gun rights goodbye as well as relgious freedom. If the liberals got a hold of our constitution, the end result would make Stalin, Kruschev and Lenin smile in their graves.