The intent of this document is to address the common fears and misunderstandings (F&M) that are widely circulated in print, the internet and elsewhere regarding the supposed terrible things that would or could result from a Second Constitutional Convention.
F&M #1: The participants in a Second Constitution could abolish the entire Constitution, just like the participants in the original Constitutional Convention.
We do acknowledge that the original task of the First Constitutional Convention was to amend and modify the Articles of Confederation, which was the original charter document of the United States. The convention was called because it had become clear that the system of government under the Articles of Confederation was ineffective after only a few years of service and needed modification – the nation had just survived Shay’s rebellion, and many feared the new nation would soon fail. However, after convention delegates worked approximately one month to modify and amend the Articles of Confederation it became clear that a whole new working document needed to be created.
Contrast those early times to today where we have more than 200 years of enormous success under the Constitution – the foundation document that paved the way to the rapid creation of the wealthiest, most powerful nation in history. In the face of that incredible success, what modern convention participant would recommend the Constitution be dissolved? Furthermore, how could a majority of two-thirds of the states be assembled to support such an outrageous idea as a proposal, and further still, how could a three-fourths majority of states be assembled to actually pass such a proposal? The circumstances are so different today, such comparisons between the first and potential second Constitutional Convention are pointless.
Additionally, Article 5 provides only for the creation of amendments to the Constitution, not the reconsideration of the Constitution. Any activity to tear down or rescind the Constitution would be an act of treason. (You need not take our word for it, please use our link and read Article 5 or even the entire Constitution for yourself)
Finally, such fears appear to show very little faith in the wisdom and commitment of the American people since such arguments assume that American citizens would sit passively as their vital form of government was rescinded or significantly revised.
F&M #2: The Congress would determine who the convention participants would be, how many delegates there would be, and could appoint special interest or single issue proponents who would propose potentially harmful amendments and/or undue significant elements of the Constitution.
Careful reading of the Constitution shows in fact that the Congress has only two requirements and powers with respect to any future Constitutional Convention. First, Congress is required to call a convention whenever petitioned by two-thirds or more of the states. Second, Congress has the authority to determine whether the ratification or defeat of any proposed amendments are done separately in the fifty individual statehouses, or by separate conventions in each state that are convened for the purpose of considering amendments. No other authority or power over Constitutional Conventions is granted anywhere in the Constitution to either of the Congress, President or Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that any powers not delegated to the federal government under the Constitution, nor prohibited by it for the states, belongs to the states and people respectively.
The Constitution does not specify anything about the selection, membership, leadership or organization of future Constitutional conventions. We believe that based on the direction of the Tenth Amendment, these decisions are to be made by the respective states. We believe petitions calling for a convention sent to Congress should include proposals regarding the selection, make up and processes by which the convention would be conducted. We provide a proposed convention process as a starting point,(www.citizens-first.com) but the final design, participation, process and leadership of any future Constitutional Convention clearly lies with the states.
Finally, we need to remember that all 535 members of the Unites States Congress are American citizens too, who have taken an oath of high office to, among other things, defend the Constitution of the United States. These are not evil people who would willfully do anything to intentionally harm the Constitution. At worst, if they had the power to determine who the membership of a Constitutional convention would be, they may have a predisposition to appoint members to make it ineffective so amendments, like our proposal to impose congressional term limits would not be proposed.
F&M#3: A Second Constitution Convention could become a “runaway convention” defining its own rules and scope and rewrite huge portions of the Constitution, just like the original Constitutional Convention.
We do acknowledge that the original task of the First Constitutional Convention was to amend and modify the Articles of Confederation, which was the original charter document of the United States. The convention was called because it had become clear that the system of government under the Articles of Confederation was ineffective after only a few years of service and needed modification – the nation had just survived Shay’s Rebellion, and many feared the new nation would soon fail. However, after convention delegates worked approximately one month to modify and amend the Articles of Confederation it became clear to the delegates that a whole new working document needed to be created.
Contrast those early times to today where we have more than 200 years of enormous success under the Constitution – the foundation document that paved the way to the rapid creation of the wealthiest, most powerful nation in history. In the face of that incredible success, what modern convention participant would recommend the Constitution be dissolved? Furthermore, how could a majority of two-thirds of the states be assembled to support such an outrageous idea as a proposal, and further still, how could a three-fourths majority of states be assembled to actually pass such a proposal? The circumstances are so different today, such comparisons between the first and potential second Constitutional Convention are pointless.
Additionally, Article 5 provides only for the creation of amendments to the Constitution, not the reconsideration of the Constitution. Any activity to tear down or rescind the Constitution would be an act of treason.
Finally, such fears appear to show very little faith in the wisdom and commitment of the American people since such arguments assume that American citizens would sit passively as their vital form of government was rescinded or significantly revised.
F&M#4: Constitutional Conventions cannot be limited to specific issues, like balanced budget amendments for example, and therefore anything could be proposed as an amendment.
This statement is fundamentally correct -states cannot put limits on amendment proposals that could be created in a convention. The statement seems to imply then that the sky is the limit and again, a “runaway convention” could rewrite or essentially replace our Constitution. At best this is a fear tactic since it does not acknowledge that regardless of what amendments are proposed, three-fourths of the state legislatures still have to ratify the amendments, which means that something like 3,000 – 5,000 state legislators would have to concur.
Second, this fear tactic also starts from the premise that convention delegates would not have the country’s best interest at heart and would willfully propose amendments and take actions that are harmful to our nation. This is a rather significant insult to the state leaders who would determine who the convention delegates would be, and expresses a fundamental lack of faith in representative democracy at the state level. In effect, those holding this fear are saying we cannot trust our state legislators to appoint good delegates to a convention, and after that, we can’t trust our state legislator to make sound judgments when considering amendment proposals.
F&M#5: The delegates selected for a second Constitutional Convention will be of no better leadership quality than we have in the federal government today since the voters continue to return largely the same leadership to the Congress election after election. Leadership of that quality in a Constitutional Convention will make matters worse.
This argument has several flaws, beginning with the notion that voters continue to make bad choices by repeatedly putting the same folks in office – as if they are presented with real choices with any regularity. The fact is, the average Congressman or Senator has over a 90% and 85% probability respectively of being re-elected because the barriers to run are too high. The average Senate campaign costs $8.6 million and the average House campaign costs $1.3 million, and the typical challenger has to spend twice what the incumbent spends to secure a victory. The high cost of entry keeps many of our best leaders out of the game, and contributes significantly to the high re-election rates. Voters are not repeatedly making bad choices as much as there are no realistic alternative choices to make.
The second flaw in this argument is the assumption that if the poor delegate quality is true then it necessarily follows that poorly considered Amendments will result, thereby making matters worse. This argument fails to acknowledge that ¾ of the delegation or ¾ of the individual statehouses will have to agree to ratify any Amendments. What really is the risk that ¾ of our state legislators will simultaneously commit the same grievous error and ratify flawed Amendments?
Finally, those who fear that a second Constitutional Convention will make matters worse, are by default saying that the fear of a second Constitutional Convention is greater than the certainty of continuing to do what we are doing. We know what we will get if we keep doing what we are doing – poor leadership choices, corruption, special interest influence, and disenfranchisement (at the primary level). Is that really the right course to follow? Isn’t it worth some risk to potentially chart a much better course? - our Founding Fathers thought so….
