Call a constitutional convention? Uh, no
For almost 230 years, the U.S. Constitution has served as the framework for the world’s oldest enduring democracy. It has kept our speech free, our powers separated and our emoluments unaccepted. It still looks pretty good for pushing a quarter of a millennium.
A group of Wisconsin Republicans, however, has been staying up late at night texting a younger, sexier Constitution. This flirtation reached a new level recently when state Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) introduced a resolution calling on Wisconsin to join a constitutional convention of states to rewrite America’s founding document.
Under Article V of the Constitution, two-thirds of the states may call for a new convention. Thus, 34 states would have to approve resolutions in order for the new convention to take place. To date, 29 states have passed such resolutions, 16 of them when a wave of Article V fever hit America in the 1980s.
The Republicans who back a new convention argue Congress hasn’t been doing its job and drastic action is needed. They vow a new convention would be limited to passing an amendment requiring Congress to balance the federal budget.
But cracking open the Constitution in 2017 could be as horrifying as when the Germans cracked open the Ark of the Covenant at the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Once you’re inside, there’s no telling what you’ll find. As the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once counseled , “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”
That’s because no matter how many promises conservative convention enthusiasts make, there is no way to limit the scope of any convention that is called. Article V provides no mechanism for reining in the topics of a convention — once you’re in, the full menu is available.
Among liberals, this stokes fear of a “runaway convention” where the Koch brothers sit at a table and rewrite the Bill of Rights.
But it’s conservatives who should be worried.
While a balanced budget amendment could garner enough public support for passage, Republicans would put at risk all the other existing amendments that have defined America for centuries. Just within the past three years, Senate Democrats introduced a proposed amendment that would have drastically altered the freedom of political speech provided by the First Amendment. A recent Pew poll found that 40% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 thought “offensive” statements made in public should be outlawed. Do we really think the First Amendment needs “updating?”
For decades, progressives have seen things in the Constitution that aren’t there, which is why they have needed activ-
ist judges to plant their pet concepts in the text. But once the conventioneers’ dirty little fingers are rooting around our rights, those implicit concepts may become explicit.
Think all Americans have a constitutional right to Internet service or “safe spaces”? Do you think the Constitution’s “separation of church and state” prohibits governments from providing vouchers to poor kids to attend religious schools, or that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment applies to militias and not individuals?
Plenty of people on the left do, and they can’t wait to undo the protections the Constitution has provided. For conservatives, succeeding in calling a convention would be the dog catching the car — the consequences most likely would not be pretty.
In fact, it is the age of the Constitution that makes it beautiful. While many on the left see an antiquated, outdated document, conservatives should see it as a timeless statement of individual freedom.
In many of America’s toughest times, the Constitution has stood as a dam against the wave of capricious public opinion, protecting individuals against ever-growing government power. Conservatives should repay her with loyalty, not a makeover.