Political Science Essay

 Rebuttal To Anti-Conventionist Rhetoric

Lately there are lots of OpEds going against calls for a constitutional convention (also referred to as a Convention of States or Article V Convention). These Anti-Conventionist OpEds relate how the Constitution is one of the finest legal documents ever conceived by humanity, perhaps even divinely inspired, and how holding a new convention today would be a disaster—we don’t have people today who are intellectually or spiritually equivalent to those who framed the Constitution—Chief Justice Anton Scalia was quoted saying that now is not the time to be writing a new constitution. It would be too divisive. Who knows what monstrosity would come of it the Anti-Conventionists ask.

Well, first of all, we’re not talking about writing a new constitution, we’re talking about gathering delegates together to formally discuss our collective situation and whatever is discussed still has to be reviewed by Congress. There is no way a convention is going to convene and then tell the rest of the USA that they’re calling the shots. A few hundred delegates telling Congress it’s no longer in charge? Members of Congress giving up political power to delegates? Not.Gonna.Happen. Since the convention will be composed of people from across a massive country, and who don’t know each other, means that at some point they'll want to go home. Thus, due to human nature, when the motion to adjourn passes, and delegates are driving or flying home, nothing will have changed—we will still have the same Constitution we have now, still have the same Congress, same President, and same Courts. So please say it again Anti-Conventionists—when the convention adjourns, Nothing.Will.Have.Changed. Meaning, fears of a convention altering the Constitution in any way are utterly baseless, figments of the imagination, a giant brain fart of the complacent and brain dead.

Here’s the good news: of all ideas delegates leave on the table, Congress has to decide how they’re going to be vetted (state legislature or state mini-convention [we used the latter mode to end prohibition])—and because the threshold is 3/4 or 75% approval, means that roughly seven out of ten Americans are going to have to say Yes before an idea has any chance of being adopted. There have been thousands and thousands of ideas proposed over the years, and we’ve only adopted twenty-seven, so whatever delegates today come up with, it’s got to be a no-brainer. Now ask yourself, what could special interests, or the Koch Brothers, or George Soros, or the ACLU or ALEC, or a foreign nation, or whoever your favorite boogeyman is—what could they propose as an amendment that Americans from across the political spectrum and all walks of life would be down for? Next to 0%, which is a long, long way from 75%. Political polls of the past quarter century show that the only things Americans from the right and left agree on are electoral reforms. Everyone agrees there is too much private money driving public policy, and that we need electoral reform, because without it government is for sale. Indeed, with the advent of dark money, our government is up for sale even to foreign governments. So please say it again Anti-Conventionists—without electoral reforms government remains for sale to the highest bidder, even our competitors.

The one and only thing the Article V Convention does is allow us to formally discuss our collective situation—as a society, as a nation, as a culture of freedom. If we come to find there really isn’t anything to agree on, then so be it, Congress will have carried out its constitutional obligation, and we will have had the discussion like mature and responsible adults. Talking about things informally on the internet day-in and day-out isn’t cutting it.

To become educated on this subject and the history behind it, please visit Friends of the Article V Convention @foavc.org