Constitutional Convention, anyone? [View All]

[Literate Dragon]

I encountered something very interesting to me today: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/2011_0922liberals_invited_to_harvard_tea_party/

As we should all know, the U.S. Constitution contains two different procedures by which amendments may be proposed to the states for ratification. The first method, and the only one that has ever actually been used, is for amendments to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority. Congress does not actually PASS the amendment, it only proposes it, and 3/4 of the states must then ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.

The other method, which has never been used, is for 2/3 of the states to call for a Constitutional convention, similar to the one that took place when the Constitution we have now was adopted. If 2/3 of the states call for such a convention, Congress MUST call for it, and the states must then send delegates. The convention would then propose amendments (up to a completely new constitution) which would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states just as if they had come from Congress. If a convention is called, no limits can be placed on the changes they can propose to the states. Just as the original convention, called for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, ended up scrapping the whole thing and starting over, so might a new constitutional convention scrap our current governing document and start fresh with a new one (although I suspect any likely convention would want to keep many aspects of the existing government).

Why would we wish to do this, and create the danger of truly radical change? Because we are against the wall. Our democracy has been suborned. Both parties, for the most part, serve the corporate interests, not the public interest. This means that no solution to the terrible problems we face as a nation can be achieved by electoral politics within the existing system. No viable alternative will be offered to the people for a vote. All must pass the corporate veto. Since the ordinary way of effecting real change is denied to us, we must take a more radical approach, and a constitutional convention -- if we can pull this off -- has the advantage of being nonviolent and avoiding the consequences of revolution.

The U.S. Constitution represents a compromise among divergent interests and values. It compromised the interests of big states with those of small ones, of democracy with the propertied class' fear of the mob, of slave-owners with abolitionists. Any new Constitution, or any lesser scope of amendments to come from a convention, would have to represent a similar compromise. We could not get a left-wing paradise from such a procedure. Nor could the Tea Partiers get a theocracy or a government of libertarian principles or anything else outrageously radical that we would not approve. But that doesn't make the process futile. There are few points of agreement between the Tea Party right (or at least its younger members) and the insurgent left, but one of them seems to be that government corruption and control of the government by corporate interests needs to go. Although there are many changes to the Constitution that might be proposed to make it more modern and genuinely democratic (starting with the abolition of the Electoral College and going on through proportional representation in the House, and perhaps an expanded House so that each Representative represents a smaller number of people), the one thing that must change if we are to retake our government and restore democracy is an amendment something like this:

The right of free speech does not imply an unlimited right to amplify one's speech or that of another through the purchase of media outlets, or through monetary contributions made to political campaigns.

This simple provision would permit the imposition of sensible and democracy-protecting campaign finance laws and legislation that would set aside the Citizens United decision. It cannot possibly come from Congress, corrupt beyond redemption as that body is. And until it becomes law, Congress will remain corrupt and incapable of passing other legislation necessary to restore prosperity and national health.

For this measure alone, a Constitutional convention would be a worthy risk to take, a worthy cause to pursue. Or so it seems to me. What do the rest of you think?