Today the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Delegate Jim LeMunyon (R-Fairfax) in which he expressed support for a new constitutional convention. In the past legislative session LeMunyon sponsored House Joint Resolution 183 which formally called on Virginia to submit an application for a convention as outlined in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
LeMunyon gave Bearing Drift an exclusive interview on this matter last week and it will be included in April’s E-Zine. As it turns out, there might be more support for a convention than most people are aware. If you have not subscribed to the E-Zine, do so now!
You can read LeMunyon’s op-ed here.
Some excerpts:
“The U.S. Congress is in a state of serious disrepair and cannot fix itself. It has reached this point over the course of many years—in fact over many decades. Regardless of the party in power, Congress has demonstrated a growing inability to effectively address the major issues of our time, including soaring federal debt and the extension of federal authority to states and localities.
“The only effective remedy is constitutional reform to rein in congressional excesses and abuses. But Congress can’t be expected to propose amendments to fix itself, as it has an inherent conflict of interest…
“The principle problem for critics is that it may not be possible to limit the agenda of a constitutional convention. In addition to an amendment relating to a balanced federal budget, for example, a “runaway convention” driven by political fringe groups might propose revising or deleting existing provisions of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This issue was raised when my resolution was considered in committee in the Virginia House of Delegates.
“Legal experts differ regarding the extent to which the scope of a convention could be restricted. Nevertheless, no one should fear a runaway convention, since the outcome of such a convention has no standing unless approved by 38 states. Or, to look at it another way, if even one chamber in 13 state legislatures refused to consider an amendment proposed by a convention, the proposed amendment would not take effect. This provides a very high threshold for amending the Constitution.”
