Delegate lobbies for constitutional convention in Wall Street Journal
By Alan Moore | Thursday, April 1st, 2010 | PolicyToday 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.”
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Alan Moore is a conservative activist and public relations expert in NoVA. Follow Alan on Twitter: @SecPress
Comments
12 Responses to "Delegate lobbies for constitutional convention in Wall Street Journal"
I’m not sure why the delegate thinks the constitutional convention will be any more functional than Congress. Seems like the same issues that bitterly divide the country would divide the convention and keep it from reaching consensus. If we could all just agree to eliminate the filibuster rule and then adjourn, I’d be all for that.
FYI – The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution and therefore the convention could not get rid of it. It is a rule of the Senate, set by the Senate. As for convention not working the states are not as divided as you seem to think they are on several major issues, like putting the Federal Goverment back inside its Constitutional fence, forcing them to balance the budget, etc, etc and so forth.
GovGirl: The states will be represented -the red states by Republicans, the blue states by Democrats, who’ll be divided by the same issues they always are divided by.
You’re right about the filibuster, but…a constitutional convention could forbid the Senate from having such a rule.
Steve,
It could, but it won’t and remember not so long ago, your side of the aisle was loving it – and using it, on EVERYTHING, so be careful what you wish for, you will not always have the majority.
I’m not claiming a side of the aisle and the my argument would be that both sides have overused the filibuster in recent years and used it for purposes it was never meant for. It was supposed to be a method of slowing down the majority, to allow for time for debate and possibly amendment of a bill, not a way to bring he entire chamber to a screeching halt.
Perhaps we should go back to old filibuster rules where the opponents have to keep talking instead of the 60 vote rule.
SE VA MWC: I think that would be a tremendous idea. If someone wants to filibuster, make them actually do it, no just threaten to do it.
That filibuster rule is still there – and I was reading the other day that the 60 vote cloture rule is a down grade from what used to be 66 votes. Cloture and filibuster aren’t the same, if you want to stop a cloture vote, you can still filibuster, or deny unanimous consent and all the rest. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Govgirl: did you read that in Newsweek? I read that article too and was surprised to learn that the creation of the filibuster was initially a mistake….the Senate screwed up when revising its rule and didn’t notice that they’d deleted the provisions on ending debate.
This is a terrible idea, there is too much risk of losing some important elements. If politicians won’t follow the current one, why would they follow a new one?
I urge everyone to learn all the facts about the Article V convention option at foavc.org and consider becoming a member of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention.
[...] to call for an Article V constitutional convention. LeMunyon followed that interview up with an op-ed in the Wall Street [...]
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.