Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

The Case Against An Article V Constitutional Convention

by @ 12:40 pm on April 1, 2010. Filed under Politics, U.S. Constitution

Virginia Delegate James LeMunyon has an article in today’s Wall Street Journal where he makes an argument that I’ve been hearing with disturbing frequency lately:

The remedy is in Article V of the Constitution, which permits a convention to be called for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. Any proposed amendment then would have to be ratified by both houses of 38 state legislatures (three-fourths of the states). This entails 76 separate votes in the affirmative by two houses of the 38 state legislatures. (Nebraska, with its unicameral legislature, would be an exception.)

Interest in calling a first-ever Article V convention is growing at the state level. A petition for such a convention passed the Florida Senate last month, to propose amendments requiring a balanced budget and to restrain the growth of the national government. If approved by the House, Florida would be the 20th state with an active call to do so. In the Virginia House of Delegates, I introduced a resolution (H.J. 183) calling for a constitutional convention to restrain the national government as well. Requests by two-thirds or 34 states are required for a convention to be called.

Here’s what Article V says about a Convention:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States

It sounds like a pretty straightforward idea. If Congress is being stubborn about passing Amendments that the people deem necessary, why not call a Convention to go over their heads ?

Well, there’s a very good reason, and former Chief Justice Warren Burger put it bluntly in 1983:

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.

Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a “miracle.” Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.

Burger, of course, was exactly right then and he’s exactly right now.

It’s worth noting, as Burger does, the historical context in which the 1787 Convention came to be:

On January 21, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following James Madison’s recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce these interstate conflicts.[1] At what came to be known as the Annapolis Convention, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a “Grand Convention.”[1]

Instead of discussing improvement to the Articles of Confederation, though, the delegates quickly moved to the creation of an entirely new system of government that had no resemblance to the then-current national government and, when they were done, instead of complying with the amendment procedure provided for in the Articles, which would have required approval by Congress and unanimous consent of all thirteen state legislatures, they provided for a ratification process that completely bypassed Congress and the states. And they did that because they knew there was no way the new Constitution would have been approved by all thirteen states.

The Articles of Confederation, of course, were a flawed document and it’s unlikely that the United States would have survived as a unified nation for very much longer had they remained in place. So, in some sense, Madison and the others at Philadelphia did the right thing.

But, as Burger says, we were lucky and there’s no reason to believe we’d be similarly lucky as second time.

Regardless of any of the arguments that LeMunyon and the others make about ways to limit the scope of the convention, the experience of 1787 makes it plain that, once called, there is no way to limit the scope of a Constitutional Convention, and no reason to think they we’d end up with an entirely different Constitution when it was over.

We were also lucky in 1787 because of the men who gathered to write the Constitution. The values they shared were values of individual liberty and small government. Does anyone truly believe that we’d be lucky enough to have delegates to a 2013 Convention, say, that were anywhere near the intellectual and moral calibre of Madison, or Mason, or Franklin ? Yea, I didn’t think so.

Finally, Burger’s point about the importance of secrecy in the 1787 proceedings is even more poignant today. In the era of the 365/24/7 news cycle, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, there wouldn’t be any way to keep these deliberations secret and making them public would just increase the likelihood that the end product would be one big mess.

The Constitution isn’t perfect and there are many things I would change about it, but I am not willing to take the risk of sacrificing the entire structure we’ve built over the past two centuries just for a chance to do it.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

7 Responses to “The Case Against An Article V Constitutional Convention”

  1. [...] The Case Against An Article V Constitutional Convention [...]

  2. Bill Walker says:

    First of all the letter referred to above as the Burger letter is bogus. Burger is on public record supporting an Article V Convention as he clearly understood there was a difference between a “constitutional convention” and an Article V Convention this author doesn’t bother to make. The Burger letter was created by a John Birch Society operative. You can read about it at http://www.foavc.org FAQ section.

    Article V clearly limits a convention to proposing amendments. All 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V convention call far in excess of the 34 applications required. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.

    This author relies on old, disproved JBS material from 1989. FOAVC has addressed these arguments and found all have one thing in common: they are all lies or mistruths that the public record disproves. Ignore these lies and come out for a convention. The JBS has controlled our Constitution for over 35 years with these lies stopping us from making necessary changes to our form of government until now we find ourselves in a crisis situation. It’s time to remove them from the picture and concentrate on getting this nation right again. We can’t continue to make constitutional policy on JBS lies.

  3. Bill,

    Nice try but if you’re going to post a link at least be accurate about what’s there. There is no “refutation” of the Burger letter in the FAQ section of the link you provided.

    Also, Burger reiterated the position he put forth in that letter on several occasions after the date of the letter. So, you’re lying

  4. statusquobuster says:

    Rather than fearing an Article V convention, Americans should fear the two-party plutocracy status quo where voting no longer has a chance of producing deep, needed reforms. Also, what should anger patriots is that Congress has refused to obey the Constitution because over 700 applications for a convention from all 50 states more than meets the one and only requirement for a convention. More evidence of how corrupt the political system is. What Congress fears is exactly what Americans need. Learn all the facts at foavc.org.

  5. J Headley says:

    The entire FOAVC lies. They’re more a cult than a political lobbying group.

  6. Bill Walker says:

    Doug,
    When you lie you need to be sure it can’t be shown as such. FAQ 8.6 discusses the Burger Letter. Now as to it being a lie, check out the fact Burger clearly understood a “constitutional convention” is not the same thing as an Article V Convention and said so in public. In fact he urged use of the amendment system which of course includes the convention.

    There’s a bunch more on the bogus Burger Letter. You can read that here: http://www.nolanchart.com/article6024.html

  7. Ha !

    The Nolan Chart article points me to the 1986 Burger letter which essentially repeats what he said in the other letter.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]