Omar Bennett
There are several issues surrounding the desire for a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention is a gathering of state delegates to propose changes to a constitution. The United States Constitution was last amended in 1787, and there have been calls for another convention to address issues such as campaign finance reform and the federal budget. However, there is opposition to this idea, with concerns that it could lead to a runaway convention where the constitution is radically altered. Some legal scholars argue that states cannot control a constitutional convention, and it could be heavily influenced by powerful interest groups. There is also no established procedure for how a convention would be run, and it is unclear if a convention would be limited to discussing a single issue.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Opposition to a convention | John Birch Society, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Eagle Forum, Common Cause, Cato Institute, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, James Madison, Justice Antonin Scalia, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, legal scholars and experts |
| Support for a convention | Conservative activists, Columbia legal scholar David Pozen, Wolf-PAC, Citizens for Self-Governance |
| Reasons for opposition | Lack of clarity on rules and procedures, risk of a "runaway convention", concerns over representation, fears of unpredictable and harmful changes, influence of powerful interest groups |
| Reasons for support | Opportunity to "rethink our institutions and make them more democratic", address issues such as campaign finance and the balanced budget amendment |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The risks of an Article V convention
The convention could write its own rules and set its own agenda, and there is no way to ensure that the convention would stick to a single issue or amendment. While some legal scholars argue that a limited convention is possible, others disagree, and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the meaning of Article V. This means that there is a risk that a convention could be highly contentious and politicized, with unpredictable results.
There is also a risk that the convention would not represent "We the People", but merely the interests of states. If each state had one vote, smaller states would have a disproportionate advantage. This could lead to a situation where the convention proposes amendments that favour the interests of smaller states over larger ones.
In addition, an Article V convention could be used to propose amendments that would limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, or even dismantle modern governance by ending environmental protections, economic regulation, and social safety net programs. While some may see this as a positive outcome, others view it as a dangerous curtailment of the federal government's ability to govern effectively.
What Does Virginity Mean?
You may want to see also
The unpredictable nature of a convention
The absence of clear guidelines in Article V on the ground rules for a convention leaves room for political considerations and pressures. There is no consensus on how delegates would be chosen, and the issue of representation could favour certain states over others. While some argue that each state should have one vote, as in the 1787 convention, this would disadvantage states with larger populations.
The potential for powerful, well-funded interest groups to influence the process is also a concern. Former Chief Justice Burger warned that a "Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups." The broad language in some state resolutions could further increase the likelihood of sweeping changes beyond what legislators intended.
Additionally, there is a risk that a convention could deviate from its intended purpose or combine multiple topics during its deliberations. While some argue for a limited convention focused on a single issue, others, like law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, believe a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit." This uncertainty makes it challenging to predict the outcome and potential impact of a constitutional convention.
Exploring the Constitution: Why Audiobooks?
You may want to see also
The role of interest groups
Interest groups have played a significant role in the push for a constitutional convention, particularly those with conservative or right-leaning ideologies. The conservative group Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG), for instance, has been actively campaigning for an Article V convention. This group, along with other conservative activists, has been invoking a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that allows 34 out of 50 state legislatures to demand a convention for proposing changes to the national charter. While their specific proposals vary, they share the common goal of significantly reducing the size and influence of the federal government.
The Wolf-PAC, a political action committee that emerged from the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, is another interest group advocating for a constitutional convention. Wolf-PAC's goal is to address the issue of campaign finance and get corporations out of politics. Their resolution seeks to revoke the constitutional rights of corporations, prevent them from donating to politicians, and impose a cap on individual donations to politicians.
The influence of these interest groups has sparked concerns among legal scholars and experts about the potential for a runaway convention where special interest groups exert outsized influence and push for sweeping changes beyond the control of the states or Congress. Former Chief Justice Burger expressed this concern, stating that a "Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups."
Additionally, there is apprehension regarding the lack of clarity on how a convention's rules and procedures would be established. Without a predefined framework, there is a risk of the convention being influenced by political considerations and pressures, ultimately resulting in unpredictable and possibly detrimental outcomes.
While interest groups have been driving forces behind the calls for a constitutional convention, it is important to acknowledge the counterarguments and concerns raised by legal experts and scholars. The potential for a convention to be dominated by special interests and the uncertainty surrounding its procedures are significant factors that cannot be overlooked in this debate.
The Filibuster Rule: Is It Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The need for clarity on rules and procedures
The lack of clarity on the rules and procedures of a constitutional convention is a significant concern. The convention method outlined in Article V of the Constitution has never been used, and there is no guidance provided on how such a convention should be run. This has led to fears that a convention could become a runaway convention, with the power to propose anything it sees fit, and the ability to make its own rules and set its own agenda.
There is a risk that powerful, well-funded interest groups would seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, as a constitutional convention would present an opportunity to enact major policy changes. This is particularly true given the broad language contained in many of the resolutions passed by states. The convention could also choose a new ratification process, as was done in 1787, when the convention ignored the existing ratification process and created a new one, lowering the number of states needed to approve the Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process.
Some argue that Congress should enact a comprehensive set of procedures before a convention is assembled, to prevent a runaway convention. However, there is no guarantee that a convention would obey any rules set by Congress. There is also a question of representation at a convention, with some arguing that each state should have one vote, while others believe this would give an unfair advantage to states with smaller populations.
The unpredictable nature of a constitutional convention has led to near-universal opposition on the left, with concerns that it could lead to radical and harmful changes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, some progressive scholars and reformers are questioning whether it is wise to take the convention option off the table completely, given the lack of progress on democracy reform in Congress.
Texas Constitution: What Rights Are Guaranteed?
You may want to see also
The possibility of radical changes
There is a fear among some that a constitutional convention could result in a runaway convention, where the convention makes its own rules and sets its own agenda, potentially leading to wholesale changes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is because Article V does not provide any guidance on how a convention should be run, including how delegates would be chosen and how many delegates each state would have. While some believe that these questions can be left to the delegates themselves, others argue that Congress should enact a comprehensive set of procedures before a convention is assembled to prevent a runaway convention.
The potential for powerful, well-funded interest groups to influence the process and press for major policy changes is also a concern. Former Chief Justice Burger warned that a constitutional convention would be a "free-for-all for special interest groups". The broad language in many of the resolutions passed by states could also increase the likelihood of sweeping changes. Additionally, there is a risk that a convention could choose a new ratification process, as the 1787 convention did, lowering the number of states needed to approve any changes.
While some progressive scholars and reformers argue that a convention could offer an opportunity to make institutions more democratic, others worry that it could lead to a far-right fiscal austerity agenda being enshrined in the Constitution. For example, one campaign seeks an amendment requiring Congress to balance the federal budget, which could make it harder for lawmakers to raise taxes. There are also efforts to propose multiple amendments limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, including abolishing the income tax and narrowing Congress's regulatory powers. If adopted, these measures would fundamentally transform governance, impacting environmental protections, economic regulation, and social safety net programs.
Forgery and Fraud: Understanding Their Intricate Relationship
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A constitutional convention is a gathering that aims to establish rules or laws that will govern a political entity. In the United States, a constitutional convention can be used to propose amendments to the Constitution.
People may want a constitutional convention to address issues they perceive with the current Constitution or government. For example, conservative activists have sought to organise a constitutional convention to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Others have suggested that a convention could be used to eliminate the electoral college, introduce term limits for senators and representatives, or balance the federal budget.
There are several concerns surrounding the calling of a constitutional convention. Firstly, there are no rules outlined in the Constitution for how an Article V convention would be conducted, including how delegates would be chosen and how many each state would have. This lack of guidance could lead to a “runaway convention” where the convention makes its own rules and sets its own agenda, potentially leading to unpredictable and uncontrollable outcomes. Secondly, there is a risk that powerful interest groups or corporations could influence the process and push for changes that may not be in the best interests of the people. Finally, there is a possibility that a convention could result in a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution, which may threaten cherished rights and freedoms.
Yes, the only constitutional convention in U.S. history took place in 1787. It was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation but instead wrote an entirely new governing document, the United States Constitution, which established a federal government with more specific powers.
