Warning on Constitutional Conventions

Some conservatives are calling for a constitutional conventional ("con-con") to consider the issue of gay marriage. Those who do so should carefully read Article V of the Constitution and realize that the Constitution itself provides no mechanism to limit the scope of a con-con once it is called, or to ensure that delegates are fairly chosen. There is a real danger that an allegedly "single issue" convention could side-step any limits given it and become a general convention that could rewrite the Constitution, as well as change the mechanism for ratification - exactly as happened in the only precedent we have, the original convention in 1787. It was empowered solely to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, and its recommendations were supposed to be approved by the legislatures of all 13 colonies and Congress. But the convention ignored those limitations and created a new form of government, and then changed the ratification requirements to leave Congress out of the loop, only require 9 colonies for ratification, and use state conventions instead of state legislatures for approval. It was a "runaway convention" - but an inspired one guided by some of the wisest men this country has ever seen. Do we have such wise men as our leaders today? Not even close. A good article on the dangers of a runaway convention is Constitutional Conventions by Craig Huntzinger.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit