![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As I pointed out in my previous posting, there seems to be a number of constitutional issues where it would appear that we have reached the point where consideration of amendments to the US Constitution ought to be considered. But how can we actually accomplish this? The current political climate suggests that a meaningful discussion of these issues, directed at establishing some consensus as to the nature of such amendments, is not likely. It is almost certain that the current Congress would be unable to garner the support of ⅔ of the members of both houses required before any such amendments can be submitted to the states for ratification. Furthermore, a comprehensive revision of the Constitution by Congress would divert too much time and attention of our legislators from the significant other business that they should be attending to.
However, Article V of the Constitution provides another option. A Constitutional Convention can be convened for the purposes of proposing amendments to the Constitution, if approved by ⅔ of the states. The Constitution does not place any limitations on the number of such amendments such a convention could propose, and places very few restrictions on the types (namely, no state shall be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent). It also does not appear that the states that authorize such a convention necessarily have to agree as to the goals for such a convention, so long as they agree that it should happen. Any amendments that arise from such a convention would then be submitted to the states for ratification (with ¾ of the states required), so that the Convention would cut Congress out of the process entirely.
While getting ⅔ of the states to agree to call such a convention might be difficult, it is not difficult to see that if you were looking for a comprehensive revision of the Constitution, the campaign for such a convention could focus on the issues important in different states/regions to build local support for the convention. There is little likelihood that enough states would view the same issues as important enough to convene a Constitutional Convention, but if we tailor the arguments to the issues in each state, there just might be enough states that have some issue that they consider important enough, even if that issue varies from state to state.
Unlike Congress, the delegates to a Constitutional Convention are all, in effect, term limited. There will be no second term and therefore no need to pander to any electorate. While it seems obvious that special interest groups would certainly attempt to influence such a convention, creating a one-time assembly for the purposes of amending the constitution would seem to lessen the influence of such interests, since the delegates should not be focused on being re-elected. With a little bit of luck, this would serve to temper the debate, allowing a more reasoned discussion and perhaps some meaningful consensus. If the historical precedent of the original Constitutional Convention were followed, where the debates of the convention were conducted in secret, then the possibility for such consensus might be even more improved.
Will any of this happen? Probably not. But there are plenty of reasons why it might be a good idea to consider.
However, Article V of the Constitution provides another option. A Constitutional Convention can be convened for the purposes of proposing amendments to the Constitution, if approved by ⅔ of the states. The Constitution does not place any limitations on the number of such amendments such a convention could propose, and places very few restrictions on the types (namely, no state shall be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent). It also does not appear that the states that authorize such a convention necessarily have to agree as to the goals for such a convention, so long as they agree that it should happen. Any amendments that arise from such a convention would then be submitted to the states for ratification (with ¾ of the states required), so that the Convention would cut Congress out of the process entirely.
While getting ⅔ of the states to agree to call such a convention might be difficult, it is not difficult to see that if you were looking for a comprehensive revision of the Constitution, the campaign for such a convention could focus on the issues important in different states/regions to build local support for the convention. There is little likelihood that enough states would view the same issues as important enough to convene a Constitutional Convention, but if we tailor the arguments to the issues in each state, there just might be enough states that have some issue that they consider important enough, even if that issue varies from state to state.
Unlike Congress, the delegates to a Constitutional Convention are all, in effect, term limited. There will be no second term and therefore no need to pander to any electorate. While it seems obvious that special interest groups would certainly attempt to influence such a convention, creating a one-time assembly for the purposes of amending the constitution would seem to lessen the influence of such interests, since the delegates should not be focused on being re-elected. With a little bit of luck, this would serve to temper the debate, allowing a more reasoned discussion and perhaps some meaningful consensus. If the historical precedent of the original Constitutional Convention were followed, where the debates of the convention were conducted in secret, then the possibility for such consensus might be even more improved.
Will any of this happen? Probably not. But there are plenty of reasons why it might be a good idea to consider.
Tags:
