Constitutional Convention Update

This is an update to my earlier blog about the possibility of a Constitutional Convention for Amending the Constitution:

As a quick review, the Ohio House of Representatives Judiciary Committee was considering a bill applying to the US Congress for a Constitutional Convention as defined in Article V of the US Constitution. If this legislation passes, Ohio would be the 33rd state to apply. When one more state applied, the US Congress would be required to call the Convention – something that was last done in 1787, resulting in the US Constitution.

The Ohio legislation was a joint resolution, proposed both in the House and Senate. The bill (see it here) proposed applying to Congress for a Constitutional Convention to provide a “balanced Federal Budget” amendment for the States to vote on.

On December 10th Ohio citizens testified concerning the bill. All of the testimonies were in opposition, and most of the speakers had not addressed a legislative committee before. All of the individuals represented conservative interests and raised enough questions in the minds of the House Judicial Committee that the committee did not approve the bill. You Tube (which is blocked in our District-that means you have to view these video clips at home) had a seven-part series chronicling the testamony. Here is Part I.

For more information on Article V and the concept of a Constitutional Constitution to propose Amendments, see a four-part video (approximately 10 minutes/part) on You Tube:
Part I Part II Part III Part IV

This video provides information about: 1) the plain language of Article V; 2) the historical precedent from our nation’s only Constitutional Convention; and 3) the consensus opinion from legal scholars, many of whom agree that an Article V convention creates an imminent peril to the well-established rights of the citizens and the duties of various levels of government.

A couple of pro-convention videos also found on You Tube:
Pro Convention Larry Sabato calls for Convention

Has the mainstream media picked up on this yet – or is this just a conservative concern? Essential question: Is a Constitutional Convention something that we need.... or not?

A New Constitutional Convention?

On December 10th of this year one of the ‘lists’ that I read had a comment on the fact that we were two states away from the US Congress being forced to call a Constitutional Convention in order to propose Amendments to the US Constitution – or what the current day lingo calls a Con Con. A vote was to be held by the Ohio legislature, which – if successful – would leave only one state left to apply for a Convention before that Convention became a reality.

At first the significance of this escaped me – as did finding much written literature on the subject. But, through perseverance, the following discoveries were made:

Article V of the Constitution provides for two methods of amending the Constitution. 1) The US Congress proposes, and 3/4th of the States have to approve the proposed amendment before it goes into effect; and 2) when 2/3rd of the States (34) apply to Congress for a Con Con. This latter method has never been used, and a number of questions arise about it.

While many of the applications for a Con Con have centered on creating an amendment for a balanced Federal budget, Article V does not limit what the Con Con – if called - could propose in the form of amendments. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."”

That is one of many questions that arise about a Con Con.

Some resources to enlighten the reader/listener:
-A number of concerns are summed up in a short You Tube presentation proportedly addressed to State legislators.
-One source did provide some interesting FAQ’s on a Con-Con.
-An article from the Daily Herald (Utah) concerning a Convention.

Things I don’t know, but would like to:

-How long is an application valid?
-What states have approved (and tried to rescind) their applications for a Con-Con?
-Why can’t a state rescind (as apparently some have done) their application?
-How often have the states neared the magic number for a Con Con occurred?
-What would a Con-Con really look like?
-Why isn’t this concept surfacing in the mainstream media?
-Why am I so clueless about this?

The Constitution Rights Foundation has an interesting lesson plan for the Convention process that could be used in the classroom.

Essential Question: What do you think would be the effects of a Constitutional Convention to provide amendments to the Constitution?