Yes. I’ve read his book. Levin has good ideas—on paper. But will a convention work in his favor? To what extent? Where is the guarantee that nothing will go wrong? What good will it do to change the Constitution when we don’t follow it?
This is where we divide between the optimists and the pessimists.
Von Clausewitz, wrote that no battle plan survives its first contact with the enemy. The bad feelings I have about this convention are emotional and deeply seated. I cannot shake them. It is simply a gut feeling that something is going to go wrong. It’s kind of like when you’re watching one of those cheap cheap horror movies and you’re screaming at the babysitter “Don’t open that door!”
Which amendments are your most/least favorite?
I get the feeling that there is a notion out there, based on the fear of states proposing amendments, that Congress proposing amendments is just fine.
Is that the sentiment?
In Congress, we have a much smaller number of people proposing amendments. 51 Senators and 238 Representatives is all it takes to get a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. And we all know how Senators and Representatives are elected today, and what agendas are driving them.
In the Senate, each state has equal suffrage, but in the House, the smaller states have fewer "delegates" to participate in proposing amendments. Will state delegations to a convention to propose amendments have a similar proportioned make-up, or will the states decide to have more even representation, perhaps giving the smaller states more power in proposing amendments than they would get within Congress?
Conversely, there would be more balance against bad amendments coming from a convention of the states than we might see coming from Congress, due to the larger representation in a state proposing convention. Yes? No?
So why this imputed sanctity for the Congressional method of proposing amendments, versus the outright fear of states proposing amendments?
-PJ