I have great sympathy for the initiative known as the Convention of States. (For additional information, also visit http://www.assemblystatelegislatures.com/)
Their argument is simple: the federal government is broken, the Constitution per Article V allows the states to call a convention, by calling this convention, “We the People” will collectively come together and make it all better.
Sounds good, right?
It certainly sounds good to men we greatly respect, Del. Scott Lingamfelter and Del. Rich Anderson – co-patrons of HJ3 (the state bill calling for a convention)- and Del. Rob Bell, candidate for the Republican nomination for attorney general; all whom have, obviously, come out in favor of the plan.
“If any of the Founders were here today and listened to us bemoan the constitutional problems we have, they would say, ‘Why are you complaining about Congressional inaction, Presidential overreach, and judicial activism? We gave you the tools to address this in Article V and you’re sitting on them whining about run away conventions, etc. We showed you how to do it when we had conventions including rules, procedures, and one state one vote. Now get busy and use the tools and precedent we gave you because we knew there would be a time when Federal overreach could occur,'” wrote Del. Lingamfelter in response to my question as to why he was supporting the resolution.
The resolution passed yesterday 52-47 in the General Assembly. And, if you’re party watching, you’ll note that there were several GOP defections.
Good for them.
However, in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, a Constitutional scholar, originalist, and textualist, the House of Delegates chooses to advocate overthrowing our federal charter now? I think that’s a bad idea.
The arguments against the dangers of this convention are innumerable, not the least the opportunity that more liberal arguments (like more presidential terms for Barack Obama or mandated single-payer health care from Bernie Sanders) could – and probably would – find a way to be discussed and, perhaps, even approved at said convention.
What Scalia believed in was looking at the words in the Constitution and seeing if it had applicability to today’s world.
For example, the Constitution talks about “cruel and unusual punishment” when it was written in the 1780’s. Yet, in the 1780’s, there was the death penalty. And the Constitution did not disavow the death penalty. Does this mean that today’s death penalty is to be deemed – by justices – as “cruel and unusual” and outlaw the practice nationwide?
Of course not. But states, under democratic process, certainly would have the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to continue the process or not.
Same goes for abortion.
There is no clause in the Constitution that discusses abortion. But it does say, with respect to the sentence of punishment (and one would presume taking another’s life is the ultimate punishment) that “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
What “due process” does the unborn child have available to it, other than the judge, jury and executioner known as “Planned Parenthood.”
No, there are certainly things in our current government that we all don’t like: a $19 trillion debt, executive authority run amok, bureaucrats imposing their will by un-legislated regulation. But is the right answer to bury the Constitution before even the greatest jurist of the last thirty years has been buried the right answer?
Certainly not. Count me in the conservative camp. I haven’t given up on our Constitution…we just need to apply it.
And in this extremely polarized environment, now is not the time to advocate something that would truly tear us even further apart.
But when all the Scalia’s of the world are gone, an Article V might be our only hope. I hope – and believe – we’re not there yet.
