In recent days the idea of using the Article V convention option in the Constitution received support in an article by Texas Senator John Cornyn, a Republican, published on the Fox News website. He noted “Recent polling suggests that a plurality of Americans support a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution if Congress will not do so.” He made a good case for using the convention option by saying it “would be part of a national conversation that could last well beyond one or two election cycles. The very length of the convention and ratification process would allow the American people ample opportunity to judge proposed reforms, and ensure that they would strengthen the checks and balances that have served our nation well.”
A few days later, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal a strong case was made for a “repeal amendment” that would give state legislatures the power to veto federal laws, something worth proposing. Though the op ed by a professor and the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates did not say so, obviously Congress would never propose such an amendment. That means using an Article V convention, whereby state delegates could propose new amendments just as Congress has done.
At the same time, a policy report from the Goldwater Institute recommended that “states seriously consider” using the convention option “to restrain the federal government.”
So the issue of using this convention option that Congress has refused to convene despite hundreds of state applications and which establishment powers on the political left and right have long opposed, merits serious examination. Start with this: Americans overwhelmingly say they love and respect the Constitution and usually specific amendments, though often different ones on the political left and right. Three frameworks help understanding why most Americans oppose using the Article V convention option. Two have been unsuccessful because convention proponents have not been able to impact most opponents who fit these two frameworks. I offer a third framework or plan of attack which I believe will work.
First, consider the craziness framework. Many Americans have been taught to fear using the convention option, even though it has never been used. They are irrational. This is like being afraid to eat the fruit of the constitutional tree first planted by the Founders even though no one has ever tasted or been harmed by the fruit. Such people stubbornly think they are acting rationally; I think they are crazy and irrational. This delusional thinking, based on what is imagined might happen, is not easily changed, because such people have been purposefully and successfully brainwashed. They have an emotional block. Rather than fear a runaway convention, people should fear our runaway politicians and government.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jeannie danna
Continuation of the status quo will not eliminate the corruption and dysfunction that the two-party plutocracy sustains. Many reforms can only be achieved through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose; this is inarguable.
Yes, we need a Constitutional convention, and the Tea Party is not a political party, it's a movement. It possess an unclear platform and is totally-void of real solutions to any of our problems.
JD Great article, Joel.
2 - Arch Conservative
Brilliant article Joel.
As usual jeannie has to chime in with fascist tendencies.
"it's a movement. It possess an unclear platform and is totally-void of real solutions to any of our problems."
That is your opinion jeannie. We all know you don't like the Tea Party because they don't share your views and that if you had your way the Democrats in Congress would make a law stating that all Tea Party members be banned from exercising their right to free speech under the penalty of death. Despite your ugly attitude torward those who disagree with you, the Tea PArty has a right to form a political party if they so choose and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
3 - zingzing
as usual, archie will throw around the word "fascist" for no real reason. and then he'll cry about the 1st amendment for no reason and with nothing but ridiculous claims. do you really even believe "the Democrats in Congress would make a law stating that all Tea Party members be banned from exercising their right to free speech under the penalty of death?" no, no you don't. but you're perfectly willing to spread bullshit lies in order to silence people. that's an ugly attitude.
i think you understand that the "tea party" is a movement within the gop. are they running on republican tickets? they haven't (yet) become their own party. if they do, how do you think that will go? you'll just split the conservative vote, thereby handing the liberals a major victory. currently, their "platform" is just the gop platform with more buzzwords and soundbites about "smaller government" and "more liberty" and "dumptrucks of freedom."
jeannie wasn't trying to silence the tea party. (they really have very little to say anyway, so what's the point?) but you know that. yet you want to throw out some "fascism," you want to make up junk (this law that the dems are planning for what to kill you with), and some junk about jeannie wanting to keep the tea party from becoming an actual party. none of which is true. why? thaaaaaaat's archie!
4 - Arch Conservative
" do you really even believe the Democrats in Congress would make a law stating that all Tea Party members be banned from exercising their right to free speech under the penalty of death?"
Of courrse not. But based on the history of the things jeannie has said about people she disagrees with I do believe she would be more than OK with the government infringing upon the 1st amendment rights of those who political views differ from her own.
She's like a lot of other leftists. She only believes in free speech when it's speech she agrees with.
5 - Joel S. Hirschhorn
Would prefer to see comments on the substance of my article, not on comments to it.
6 - zingzing
well, either leftists don't believe in free speech or maybe you're vastly overstating your case. i think it's the latter. you're quite free to put up ridiculous stuff like that in #2. gotta wonder why, since the leftists are in power right now. if you were right,
7 - zingzing
ahem. archie, if you were right and leftists really would take away your freedom of speech, they'd have done it, right? and yet you and fox news and the tea party and rush limbaugh and all those other right wingers are out there being louder than ever. something doesn't compute.
joel, you'll eat what we put on the table.
8 - A.B. Caliph
Would prefer to see comments on the substance of my article, not on comments to it.
Hah! Dream on, Mr. Hirschhorn. This is a war I've been waging to no avail for months at BC, including an extended exchange today with the zing-ed one on another thread.
But you needn't leave this page to see his arrogant condescension on display. Just check out comment #7:
joel, you'll eat what we put on the table.
9 - Jordan Richardson
Alan, if you're seriously engaged in a "war" to control the direction of conversation on the internet I'd suggest you bunk in for the long haul. Lots of luck, champ.
10 - Joel S. Hirschhorn
Perhaps there should be some policing by editors, especially for articles in the politics section. There are plenty of other places on the web for people to just talk endlessly with little content; BC should be better than that. Those who feel compelled to use the comments part of BC without having the intellect to comment on the articles themselves are shameless losers without critical thinking skills.
11 - Jordan Richardson
Those who feel compelled to use the comments part of BC without having the intellect to comment on the articles themselves are shameless losers without critical thinking skills.
Oh that'll play...
12 - Jordan Richardson
Really, Joel, you've been here since 2007. Are you just now fed up with the off-topic nonsense here or just having a bad day?
Interesting, too, that Alan would champion this stance - especially considering one of the more recent "comments" he lofted your way:
"Jesus Mary and Joseph, why not just commit suicide and be done with it? You're obviously way too superior to coexist on the same planet as the rest of us poor slobs."
Winner.
13 - Joel S. Hirschhorn
I do not intend to visit or publish on this site for a really long time. Bye-bye....
14 - A.B. Caliph
… shameless losers without critical thinking skills.
You've hit the nail on the head, Mr. Hirschhorn (#10). The problem is that, when you call for "policing by editors," you overlook the fact that they too are shameless losers without critical thinking skills. So we're in sort of a bind.
I do not intend to visit or publish on this site for a really long time. Bye-bye.
Good move, Mr. Hirschhorn (#13). That'll really show 'em, huh?
15 - zingzing
alan, it wasn't arrogant condescension, it was a joke. like what your mother would say. eat what's in front of you or go hungry, because that's all there is. not everyone is as mean-spirited as you are.
and yes, good luck with your war. have you heard of the internet before? look it up.
16 - A.B. Caliph
You just drove Mr. Hirschhorn into premature retirement from BC, and you call me mean-spirited? Now that is both arrogant condescension and a joke.
17 - Jordan Richardson
Joel is an adult. Nobody "drove" him anywhere. He's been here since 2007, so the notion that this is new territory for him is a little hard to believe.
And please, your insistence on controlling how other people interact on a free forum is getting downright creepy. If the discourse here annoys you so greatly, you can always limit your own participation as it suits you rather than attempting to force others to conform to your standards of decorum and modesty.
By your standards, you'd make a great "Islamist."
18 - zingzing
i didn't drive him to do anything. that was a light pat on the bottom at worst. i didn't tell him to go commit suicide or anything. that would be mean-spirited, don't you think?
19 - El Bicho
"I do not intend to visit or publish on this site for a really long time."
I'll alert the media, but since you hadn't written anything since July, I am not sure anyone will notice.
20 - A.B. Caliph
"Why not just commit suicide and be done with it?" I asked rhetorically. That was nearly eight weeks ago. Obviously, it did not inspire Mr. Hirschhorn to either kill himself or retire from Blogcritics. And he returned the compliment the very next day, writing, "When you say 'the rest of us poor slobs' you infer that you are one of those fools and idiots. If anyone should commit suicide, then as a grand patriotic gesture, for the good of the country, these poor slobs should do exactly that."
I don't know about the rest of us poor slobs, but I did not follow Mr. Hirschhorn's suicidal advice, nor did I retire from Blogcritics.
Yet after being set upon today by the gang of four, Mr. Hirschhorn immediately took down his shingle. Some contrast, huh?
21 - Jordan Richardson
Yes, it is. It says a lot more about Joel than it does anybody (or anything) else.
22 - Jordan Richardson
And considering that Joel was complaining about Arch and Jeannie initially, that "gang of four" is starting to look like an ensemble.
23 - A.B. Caliph
Good point. Let's make it cluster of six.
24 - Jordan Richardson
Whatever gets you through the day.
25 - Mark
Actually, jeannie is the only one to comment on Joel's article thus far...
Joel, have you had any feed back from Tea Party sympathizers on your convention ideas? I imagine that they'd welcome the chance to propose constitutional limits on Federal government based progressivism and am somewhat surprised that they haven't latched onto the convention idea.