OPPOSING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Founding Fathers on a new constitutional convention:

James Madison said he should tremble for the result of a second Con-Con

Patrick Henry said the 1787 Con-Con was a definite runaway

Benjamin Franklin also expressed doubt as to the wisdom of another Con-Con

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. The Convention cannot be limited to a single proposed amendment and is likely to be a runaway.

“One of the most serious problems Article V proposes is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.” Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg

“There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention would make its own rules and set its own agenda.” Chief Justice Warren Berger

2. The Convention could fundamentally change our Constitution or replace it altogether.

“We have only one Precedent, the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. It was summoned, “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Article of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein.” From the very beginning it did not feel confined by the call and gave us a totally new Constitution that completely replaced the Articles of Confederation. I see no reason to believe that a constitutional convention, 200 years later, could be more narrowly circumscribed.” Charles Alan Wright, School of Law, The University of Texas at Austin.

3. Selection of Delegates for the constitutional convention is undefined in the plain language of Article V.

“…the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.” Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg

“At a minimum…the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V.” Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School

4. State Legislators do not have the ultimate power of ratification.

“The Fifth Article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by action of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states.” Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920)

Legal Opinions

Lawrence H. Tribe, Harvard University Law
Charles Alan Wright, University of Texas School of Law
Gerald Gunther, Stanford Law School
Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law School

State Con-Con Rescissions

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IN FAVOR OF A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Article V

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.

The Founding Fathers of our nation recognized the importance of providing this means by which the citizens of our country could initiate amendments to change and/or clarify the Constitution; the fundamental document which they intended to be not only the blueprint for our federal system but also "the supreme Law of the Land".

Americans are largely ignorant that Congress has refused to honor and obey an important constitutional option in Article V: a convention of state delegates that could propose constitutional amendments, despite over 750 applications from all 50 states for a convention. It is their way of preserving exclusivity for proposing amendments and presidents say nothing because they fear amendments curbing their power. The Supreme Court does nothing because it likes amending the Constitution through its decisions.

**Some opponents to Article V try to perpetuate fear of an Article V Convention by claiming that it could be a run-away convention. However, that fear-mongering is not based on any facts or history. Already, the American states have had 679 (or more) Constitutional Conventions, and none of them were run-away conventions. Recently, Iraq and Afghanistan have had Constitutional Conventions. Many nations have Constitutional Conventions.

It should also be pointed out that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution can become law unless ratified by three-fourths of the states. That, by design, is a significant hurdle.
Over 10,000 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed over the past 220 years, but only 27 have been ratified. Thus, the fear-mongering about a run-away convention is unjustified. What is a major concern however, is the blatant violation by Congress to call an Article V Convention as specified in the U.S. Constitution

**A wide variety of authorities, including a special study committee of the American Bar Association, point out that a convention legally can be limited to a particular subject. These limitations can be enforced by Congress or the courts. A convention also would be constrained by a range of political factors, including the election of its delegates.

Most important, a convention called under Article V could only propose, not enact amendments. These proposals still would have to be ratified by 38 states no easy task.

Given these strong safeguards, a convention would be far less able to "run away" with the Constitution than Congress itself, which may propose constitutional amendments at any time and on virtually any subject Safety Valve.

Excellent web site detailing reasons for supporting a constitutional convention (thanks Marklar) Friends Of the Article V Convention (FOAVC)

List of links providing information supporting an Article V Convention as specified in the U.S. Constitution pro con-con