PLEASE VOTE TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE AGAINST ALL MEASURES INVOLVING ANY CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Although I generally favor balancing the budget, unless Congress were to cut spending, a balanced budget amendment would force Congress to raise taxes to meet the balanced budget constitutional requirement.
Our nation's only Constitutional Convention was held in 1787, resulting in a miraculous document called our U.S. Constitution that has served us well for 2 1/4 centuries. Now, it seems a perfect storm is brewing from the Left and the Right to hold another Constitutional Convention. No matter how seemingly worthy its stated purpose, many legal scholars and at least one Supreme Court Justice have stated that once a Constitutional Convention begins, it cannot be limited to any one purpose.
Why risk a re-write of our Constitution? Even if convention "rules" could be enforced, (which they cannot) do we really believe that today's leaders have the knowledge, wisdom, sense of justice and morality, dedication and selflessness of the Founders capable of producing an improved Constitution? And whose "improvements" would be adopted? The argument that whatever a Con-Con proposes needs to be approved by three-fourths of the states is also no comfort! You would see "horse-trading" on votes like never before in history!
At our very first Constitutional Convention, amendments to the Articles of Confederation were supposed to be adopted unanimously by the 13 states. Rules were changed allowing nine states to ratify the new Constitution. This is a precedent that future convention rules could be changed. Our Constitution is too precious a document to risk in any manner!
Imagine representatives from all 50 states meeting in a national convention! Who would select the delegates and by what method? Would they be the same elected officials who have betrayed the trust of the people? Would delegates be elected or appointed? Who would decide? How long would the Convention meet? How much would it cost? A Con-Con will become a political nightmare, with potential convention delegates jockeying for position to re-make America. The very people we do not trust to run Congress would most likely make rules for a Con-Con. Such a process will be divisive, fueled by the media, expensive, time-consuming, and will add chaotic political uncertainty to our existing economic fragility.
Back in 1994, HJ194 passed almost unanimously (91-5 in House, 37-0 in Senate), to "rescind and withdraw all past resolutions of the General Assembly applying to the Congress to call a constitutional convention...", because "the operations of a convention are unknown and the apportionment and selection of delegates, method of voting in convention, and other essential procedural details are not specified in Article V ...".and "the prudent course requires the General Assembly to rescind and withdraw all past applications for a convention..." What has transpired in the last 20 years to erase such concern?
As the grass-roots find out more about Con-Con (even though the Media have hardly mentioned a word) they will hold accountable those who vote to risk our Constitution. Personally, it is hard for me to understand how anyone who takes an Oath to defend the Constitution could vote to risk it.
With all due respect to those who advocate for a new constitutional convention, do we really think we can improve upon the wisdom of our Founding Fathers?
Sincerely,
Cathy Marshall
No comments:
Post a Comment