By: Wes Messamore. Reprinted with permission from The Humble Libertarian. All rights reserved.
Sirius talk radio host, Mike Church is calling for Americans to join him in Washington D.C. this Friday, April 9th to discuss the possibility of calling an Article V Constitutional Convention or “Con Con” to order for the purpose of fixing our broken Federal government by proposing amendments to its Constitution.
Article V of the United States Constitution says:
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, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Some libertarians oppose a “Con Con”
But many people in the resurgent liberty movement today are afraid that a 21st century Constitutional Convention would be taken over by establishment special interests and used to radically alter our Constitution for the worse, editing out some of our basic rights, or assuming bold new powers for the Federal government.
At The Daily Paul, many of Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters are asking: “Do we need to give the power to write a new constitution to the very people who have been ignoring, usurping, and trying to destroy the constitution that we have now?”
In an April 1st press release, American conservative, Phyllis Schlafly writes: “A new Con Con would be extremely risky. It would be impossible to restrict the agenda to only one issue. There are no rules in the Constitution or in any law to limit a Con Con’s purpose, procedures, agenda or election of delegates.”
Other libertarians find “Con Con” fears baseless
This isn’t a new issue by any means. In a 1996 article, The Cato Institute explains:
While a convention’s agenda cannot be limited–the critics are absolutely right on this–a convention has no authority whatever to amend the Constitution. A convention can only “propose.” And a proposal is just that. No proposal becomes constitutional law until it is ratified. And that is another matter entirely.
Thus, there is all the difference in the world between a free-standing “Constitutional Convention”–authorized to write even its own rules of ratification–and a convention for proposing amendments to an existing constitution that already prescribes how any such amendments are to be ratified. In no way does Article V authorize the former. Any proposals to amend the existing Constitution that proceed by either of the methods prescribed in Article V must be ratified by the procedures prescribed there as well–however far reaching those proposals may be. Indeed, even a proposal to change the ratification procedure itself must be ratified by the existing ratification procedure.
Turning to ratification, then, if proposing amendments is difficult, ratifying them is extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, it is no accident that in more than 200 years, only 27 amendments have been ratified (10 at the outset, one of the remaining 17 repealing another), for ratification must be by the concurrence of “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.” Given the unlikelihood of the latter method, the numbers alone tell the story. With Nebraska as the only state with a unicameral legislature, it takes majorities in 75 of the 99 state legislative bodies in America to ratify any change in the Constitution. Looked at from the other direction, it takes only 13 such bodies to block any change. Those who fear a “runaway” convention have simply not done their ratification arithmetic.
Are we really to believe that a runaway convention could get its schemes past the public? Are there not 13 bodies in this land that would rise to block all but the most popular of proposals?
More on the Article V Constitutional Convention
For more information on the Article V Constitutional Convention or “Con Con” I highly recommend you listen to Kurt Wallace’s 20 minute interview with historian, Kevin Gutzman. There’s a lot of good information in there. The interview is admittedly “pro Con Con.” Feel free to share your thoughts- for or against- in the comments below.
Related posts:
