Posted on 01/25/2006 5:15:45 PM PST by Sen Jack S. Fogbound
Title - Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention By - Andrew Costly Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention? by Constitutional Rights Foundation (www.crf-usa.org)
Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for adding Amendments. Congress introduces amendments by one method; the states initiate them under the other.
The only method ever used is the congressional method. It lets Congress pass constitutional amendments by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or special state conventions, as Congress determines. Over 10,000 amendments have been introduced into Congress since 1789. Only 33 have been approved. Of these, 27 have been ratified and added to the Constitution.
The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.
Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention.
Since the 1960s, state legislatures have submitted petitions for constitutional conventions when Congress refused to pass controversial amendments. Three of these amendments would have allowed prayers in the schools, prohibited busing for racial balance, and permitted the states to make abortions illegal. In each of these cases, however, supporters fell short of getting the 34 states needed for calling a constitutional convention.
Most recently, there has been a major movement to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. Unable to get action in Congress, supporters again turned to the convention method of amendment. To date, those behind the balanced budget amendment have convinced 32 states to submit convention petitions to Congress. Backers of the amendment need only two more states to compel Congress to call a convention.
Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.
Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.
Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."
Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in "participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster."
Of course, any amendments produced by a convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. We may soon see how this never-used method works if the balanced budget people swing two more states over to their side.
Kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye if you do this.
Were it not for the necessity of going through Congress, I would think an amendment to slightly change the Electoral College might do well in 38 states. Abolishing the EC probably wouldn't fly (at least I'd hope not!) but specifying that states must allocate at least one vote per congressional district to the winner of that district might (each state would get to decide via its own constitution or legislature how to cast two of its votes).
The number of states that would gain power from such a proposal exceeds 38, so I'd think it might fly.
No! The Constitution is the Constitution is the Constitution. Live by it or get out!
Amen!
A new convention would not be attended by Ben Franklin and James Madison. Their replacements would be Al Sharpton and Diane Feinstein. And while the Constitution really isn't observed anymore, at least everyone has to pay homage to it.
ML/NJ
Howard Jarvis was right.
I'm curious.
What two or three provisions of the Constitution do you think we still live by?
ML/NJ
Because that is the way it was built. And it was built that way for a number of good reasons.
Convention not needed. What we need is guys in the Congress and the Courts who can read the one we already have.
Well, if we could somehow staff that Convention with the likes of Jefferson and Madison, then not many people would object, I suppose. But as the things stand now, we'd get an approximation of the present Congress in the hypothetical Convention, with the likes of hillary and kerry in attendance. And to this many people WOULD object.
Ping and bookmark
Point is to put power BACK to the States and the people! Do we have it today?
I'm not talking about any major changes but some minor changes (congress may not consider it minor! LOL)
Of course it is hard to change. It is built that way. But are we really living with it all the way today?
I didn't realize that stupid amendment- so harmful to the states and to the structure of the Constitution- had that much support in the states!
Exactly.. thats why we HAVE the 2nd amendment.. Would be bloody and probably would turn into the mother of all riots.. or MAYBE NOT..
Idea is about as dangerous as a kid with a gun.
It is hard to amend the constitution for a reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.