As I have done a number of times in this forum, I wish to repeat my call for a Constitutional Convention – before the “use by” date on our current Constitution expires.
As I write this, we are only two (2) States away from the “call” becoming mandatory – subject to some dispute over how long an individual State’s “call” stays in effect.
Every time I speak up for such a convention, I get alarmed responses exclaiming this would open the door for the progressives to make their political perversions legal and official through the act of embedding progressive nonsense into the re-written Constitution.
My first response to this is, yes it could happen.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume the worst – that a convention is held, that the progressives have their way with the re-written Constitution and that they somehow convince the legislatures of 34 States to ratify the thing. What would this mean?
For one thing, it would show clearly that the legislatures of a majority of the States (and, presumably, the citizens of those States) actually favor the progressive agenda. Under our system, this is their right, whether you and I agree or not.
I propose that such an outcome might actually work in our favor because it would clearly lay the groundwork for those States still loyal to the original Constitution to secede and form an alternate Republic, faithful to the ideas of our Founders. Such would allow a grand experiment to begin – a side-by-side comparison of the success of a progressive government versus a libertarian government, under otherwise similar conditions.
What? Did I hear you say our original government, that one established by the Founders, was not libertarian? I respond that you either do not know what the word libertarian means -or- you know far too little about the government of the Founders.
This leads me to conclusion #1: The worst outcome of a Constitutional Convention might not be that bad.
For my part, I do not expect the above scenario would happen because I do not think for one moment that the legislatures of 34 (or more) of our States favor the progressive agenda. Also, I do not think that 34 (or more) of our States would send delegates so inclined to the convention to begin with.
It is certain that some of our most populous States seem to lean toward the progressive agenda such that they might well send delegates that reflect this leaning. They might actually, through their numbers, be able to get some mischief passed by the convention, but, come ratification time, all States get an equal vote, regardless of population.
Now, let us consider a more appealing scenario – one where many or most of the States send delegations committed to taming the federal beast and to restoring some of the powers the States never intended to delegate. Think of the possibilities… in one fell swoop, they could:
→ Repeal the 14th amendment which has outlived its original intent (guaranteeing citizenship to newly-freed slaves) and is now used mostly against our national interests, such as supporting the “anchor baby” concept.
→ Repeal the 16th amendment, making way for the Fair Tax or some other tax system that is less corrupting and that conveys less State power to the Federal Government.
→ Repeal the 17th amendment, giving the State legislatures back their rightful representation in the national legislature.
→ Pass a new amendment establishing term limits for members of the national legislature and a mandatory retirement age for ALL federal officials, whether elected, appointed or employed (this to include the judiciary).
→ Pass a new amendment that forever abolishes the Federal Reserve and returns us to a stable currency, based on something of intrinsic value rather that one based on indebtedness.
Would all of this happen, exactly as I envision it? Most certainly not. But, perhaps a collection of minds better than my own would come up with considerably better ideas than the few I have suggested.
This leads me to conclusion #2: If we the people can no longer trust each other to at least try to do the right things, all is lost no matter what else we do.
Then, there is the most probable thing – that we will continue to do nothing. That there will be no convention, that we will allow a dysfunctional legislature to continue to “kick the can down the road”, a road that most certainly leads to the collapse of our Republic and the rise of a dictatorship.
This leads me to conclusion #3: The consequences of doing nothing, of trying nothing, are far worse that even the worst possible outcome of a Constitutional Convention.
Thus is my argument for a Constitutional Convention presented yet again. I say that it is time to swallow our doubts and to be at least half as bold as our Founders were when they threw down the gauntlet before the most powerful empire on Earth. We might lose no matter what we try, but is it not better to die trying rather than to live as a craven coward? Besides, to quote Lord Nelson “did you expect to live forever?” (said to his sailors at the Battle of Trafalgar).
Actually, there is a quote from Lord Nelson far better suited to the circumstances our Republic is now in: ”Desperate affairs require desperate measures”
This leads me to conclusion #4: The real question is not whether a Constitutional Convention is our best hope – at this point, it may well be our only hope. Waiting for the current mess that passes for a Federal Government to somehow crawl out of the pit it has dug for us is an exercise in futility.
Think about it. Then, let your State legislators know what you want done and that you want it done now.
Troy L Robinson