Simone Lawson
The United States Constitution is considered sacred by Americans, and public opinion polls show that Americans not only revere the Constitution but also hold strong opinions about its meaning. However, there have been sporadic calls for a second constitutional convention to address perceived shortcomings in the federal system. While some conservative activists have advocated for a convention to propose amendments and curtail the federal government, there is no consensus on how such a convention would be organized or led, and legal scholars warn of potential radical and harmful changes. The lack of consensus and concern over potential negative outcomes highlight the complexity and contentiousness of holding a constitutional convention without widespread agreement.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Making substantive reforms to the federal government of the United States by rewriting the U.S. Constitution |
| Agenda | To propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget and possibly to shrink federal authority |
| Control | There is no consensus on whether states can control the operations and agenda of a convention |
| Delegates | Should represent "We the People", not merely the interests of states |
| Historical precedent | The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate and wrote an entirely new governing document |
| Risks | A convention could be uncontrollable and open the door to radical and harmful changes |
| Potential benefits | Could offer progressive reformers a chance to rethink institutions and make substantive reforms |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
No consensus on how a convention may be organised, led, or who may be selected
There is no consensus on how a convention may be organised, led, or who may be selected. This is due to the fact that there has not been a constitutional convention since 1787, and the nation has not established any procedures for the formation and operation of one. Article V of the Constitution, which provides for two methods of enacting constitutional amendments, does not specify how a convention should be run. This has led to concerns that a convention could be a "dangerous and uncontrollable process" that puts Americans' constitutional rights at risk.
There are also differing opinions on who should be selected as delegates to a constitutional convention. Some argue that each state should have one vote, while others believe that delegates should be apportioned according to a state's population or number of electoral votes. The process of selecting delegates is also a concern, as majorities in state legislatures may choose delegates who reflect only their views rather than a broader spectrum of opinion within the state.
Furthermore, there is no consensus on whether a simple majority vote in a constitutional convention would be sufficient to propose constitutional amendments. While Congress requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber to propose amendments, it is unclear if the same standard would apply to a convention. This raises the possibility that amendments could be passed with only minimal support.
The lack of consensus on these issues has led to concerns about the potential consequences of holding a constitutional convention. Some worry that it could lead to a "runaway convention" that results in a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution. Others argue that it could open the door to reactionary measures that would dismantle modern governance and important social programs.
Overall, the absence of consensus on the organisation, leadership, and selection process for a constitutional convention contributes to the uncertainty and controversy surrounding the proposal for a second constitutional convention in the United States.
Georgia Constitution: Where Does the Body Belong?
You may want to see also
Amendments could be proposed to require a balanced federal budget
The United States Constitution does not require the United States Congress to pass a balanced budget, and Congress usually does not pass one. Several proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution would require a balanced budget. Most of these proposed amendments allow a supermajority to waive the requirement of a balanced budget in times of war, national emergency, or recession. One of the earliest Balanced Budget Amendment proposals was that of Senator Millard Tydings, who introduced a resolution in support of a Constitutional Amendment that would have prohibited appropriations in excess of revenues without new debt authorization and required that any new debt be liquidated over 15 years.
Supporters of a balanced budget amendment argue that respect for the Constitution will create strong political pressure to rein in deficits and impose needed accountability for irresponsible fiscal policy. Opponents argue that the political pressure could lead to budget gimmicks that would meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. They also argue that it could hamper the ability of the federal government to respond quickly and effectively to economic recessions and national emergencies.
Opponents also argue that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. There is no way to effectively limit the actions of a Constitutional Convention. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful interest groups would seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes.
However, supporters of a constitutional convention argue that 28 of the 34 states required to call a constitutional convention have already passed such resolutions. Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply to Congress for a constitutional amendment, then Congress must call that convention.
Democracy: Constitution's Core Concept
You may want to see also
Amendments could shrink federal authority in unspecified ways
The United States Constitution has become the primary text of America’s civil religion. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
In the coming months, several states are likely to consider resolutions calling for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget and possibly shrink federal authority in unspecified ways. Eight states—Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee—have enacted resolutions calling for a convention to propose amendments to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress.
However, there is no consensus among constitutional scholars on whether states can control the operations and agenda of a convention. The Constitution provides no guidance on the ground rules for a convention, leaving questions such as how delegates would be chosen and how many delegates each state would have open to political considerations and pressures. Furthermore, there is no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is unclear if the courts or any other institution could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of state resolutions calling for it.
The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, and powerful, well-funded interest groups would likely seek to influence the process and press for changes. As such, a convention could result in radical and harmful changes to the Constitution, possibly limiting provisions that certain groups hold dear.
Death Penalty: Supreme Court's Constitutional Ruling
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$30.54 $45.99
![The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates[ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS & THE C][Mass Market Paperback]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41JZ5Ub6tDL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
A convention could be highly contentious and politicised
The potential for a convention to be contentious and politicised is increased by the fact that it could be called by conservative activists who seek to radically curtail the size and scope of the federal government. This could open the door to a wholesale rewriting of the fundamental law of the United States Constitution, which could limit provisions held dear by certain groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, and the Gun Owners Clubs of America.
The lack of consensus on the role of states and their delegates in a convention further complicates the issue. While convention organisers argue that each state should have one vote, as was the practice at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it is unclear how much control states would actually have over the actions or outcomes of a convention. Delegates to a convention must represent "We the People," not merely the interests of states, and it is uncertain if this would be achievable in practice.
The potential for a highly contentious and politicised convention is further evidenced by the fact that it has never been used as a method for proposing amendments, despite being authorised by Article V of the United States Constitution. This suggests that even the proposal of a convention is a highly contentious issue, with many questions and uncertainties surrounding the process.
The Death of a President: A Constitutional Crisis
You may want to see also
Lack of citizen engagement and support
The United States Constitution is held in reverence by Americans, and there have been sporadic calls for a second convention to modify and correct perceived shortcomings in the federal system. However, there is a lack of citizen engagement and support for such a convention, which may be due to several reasons. Firstly, citizens may not feel sufficiently engaged or motivated to participate in the constitutional convention process. This could be due to a lack of awareness or understanding of the issues at stake, or a perception that their involvement would not make a meaningful difference. Additionally, some citizens may be hesitant to support a convention out of concern that it could lead to unpredictable and potentially harmful outcomes. There is a risk of a “runaway convention”, where the convention results in a wholesale rewriting of fundamental laws, threatening provisions that various groups hold dear.
Furthermore, there is no consensus on how a convention should be organized, led, or who should be selected to participate. The Article V convention method, which allows 34 of the 50 state legislatures to summon a convention, has never been used and raises questions about representation and control. While proponents argue that states can control the operations and agenda of a convention, constitutional scholars disagree, and there is no legal precedent to support these claims. The lack of clarity and consensus on the process may deter citizens from engaging or supporting a constitutional convention.
The potential for a highly contentious and politicized convention may further discourage citizen engagement and support. Prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a convention could lead to radical and harmful changes to the Constitution. Citizens may be concerned about the impact of such changes on their constitutional rights and the stability of the nation. Additionally, the complexity and unpredictability of the issues involved in a constitutional convention may make citizens feel that their participation would not be meaningful or effective.
Finally, citizens may perceive a lack of need for a constitutional convention, especially if they are satisfied with the current system or believe that other methods for proposing amendments, such as through Congress, are sufficient. Without a critical mass of engaged and supportive citizens, the momentum for a constitutional convention may falter.
Framers of the Constitution: Anti-Athenian?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Holding a constitutional convention can be a way to initiate much-needed change when other avenues have failed.
The purpose of a constitutional convention is to propose amendments to a constitution. In the case of the US, this could mean seeking to impose restrictions on federal power, such as requiring a balanced federal budget.
In the US, a constitutional convention can be called by Congress "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" to propose constitutional amendments. Alternatively, Congress must call a convention when requested by "two-thirds of the several states" (34 states).
There are concerns that a constitutional convention could result in radical and harmful changes to the constitution. As there is little guidance on how a convention should be run, it could be influenced by powerful interest groups and result in a "wholesale revision of the entire Constitution".
Some argue that a constitutional convention could be a way to bypass a stagnant Congress and usher in an era of progressive reform. It could also provide an opportunity to re-evaluate institutions and make much-needed changes.
