Constitutional Convention Would Open Pandora’s Box

October 30, 2023October 30, 2023By Alex Newman

The push for a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution is gathering momentum on the right and the left, with potentially catastrophic or even deadly consequences for what remains of the greatest republic in human history. The red flags are everywhere. And the future of Americans’ God-given rights hangs in the balance.

Right now, the Constitution is still technically the “supreme Law of the Land,” as Article VI makes clear. Every public official swears an oath—usually with a hand on the Bible—to uphold and defend it. That means much of the lawless behavior coming from the federal government that has so outraged Americans of all political persuasions is unconstitutional and illegitimate.

The forces responsible for the escalating unconstitutional abuse of America know full well their lawless schemes are not authorized by the charter that created the federal government. Therefore, they are champing at the bit to change it—or even trash it—and forever burn the bridge that could lead the United States back to the liberty, prosperity, and peace made possible by that precious Constitution for well over two centuries.

In a recent piece for Chronicles by attorney J. Eric Wise, he offered qualified praise for California’s far-left Governor Gavin Newsom (and his hair) for being “pointed in the right direction” with the recent call for a constitutional convention. Even though Wise described Newsom’s proposed gun-control amendment as “misguided,” he nevertheless argued the United States “needs, badly, a convention of states that will consider a broad overhaul of the Constitution.”

Such a convention would be a massive gamble at best, with virtually no rewards and unfathomable risks. That is why the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a 2014 interview that he was firmly against the idea. “I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention,” he responded when asked how he would like to amend the Constitution. “I mean, whoa! Who knows what would come out of that?”

At worst, it could be the final nail in the coffin for the free United States of America, a blow from which the nation would never recover. With this one mistake, the amazing heritage of the nation could go up in smoke forever, making this generation responsible for frittering away the legacy bequeathed by centuries of toil and blood shed by America’s forefathers.

Of course, many of Wise’s observations are true. The nation is currently experiencing dangerous division. And the Constitution is clearly not working as intended. It is also true that the government does not obey the Constitution anymore. In fact, politicians barely even bother pretending to follow it anymore, and few young Americans know much about it.

But the solution lies not in changing or potentially even throwing out that Constitution—a unique document in world history enshrining God-given rights that nearly a million Americans have sacrificed their very lives to defend. Indeed, most of the problems proponents of a Constitutional Convention point to result from violations of the Constitution that could be fixed by enforcement, not defects that could be fixed with amendments.

Even in a best-case scenario where conservatives, against all odds, are able to add a few good amendments, the argument falls flat. If the feds do not obey the Constitution now, how would adding new amendments for them to ignore change that problem?

Advocates of this “Convention of States” continually reassure conservatives that any dangerous amendments would be stopped by states during the ratification process. Yet the only other time such a convention was held—1787—delegates threw out the whole Articles of Confederation. They also decided to decrease the number of states needed to ratify constitutional changes, from unanimous consent to a three-fourths majority.

What would stop the next convention from moving the goalposts again? After all, they will say, the three-fourths requirement is anti-democratic and outdated. Plus, it was enshrined by “old dead white guys who owned slaves!”

Newsom, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, and the anti-American talking heads on network TV would repeat the talking points ad nauseum. And the new Constitution would be rammed through using whatever new ratification process the convention concocted—50 percent plus one, anybody? Considering the state of election integrity, this is a recipe for cataclysm.

Thankfully, the 1787 Constitution ratified under the new method ended up being a splendid document. Not perfect, obviously, but brilliant nonetheless. The principles it enshrined are timeless. And the understanding of human nature and human history displayed by its framers is unrivaled by even America’s greatest contemporary statesmen.

Would whatever new Constitution emerges from the next constitutional convention be as good—or even acceptable? Where are the James Madisons and George Washingtons of today who would lead such a convention? There are few such leaders today, if any—and what are the odds that such leaders would even be allowed to participate in, much less guide, a new convention?

The fact that Newsom and other far-left extremists seeking to disarm Americans and sexualize children in government schools see a constitutional convention as a route to victory should cause every sensible conservative to recoil in horror at the prospect. Are Newsom and California Democrats stupid? Or do they know that a convention is their path to total power, unrestrained by the current Constitution?

The reason the nation is so out of control today is not some defect in the Constitution. The real problem is that it is not being obeyed, because We The People have allowed it to be snubbed. The solution, then, is not to change the Constitution or even throw it out, but to obey it. Unfortunately for those looking for simplistic solutions, there is no silver bullet. Only an educated and informed electorate can force elected representatives to respect their oath of office to the Constitution. The path to restoring America and the rule of law begins with education. We can only hope the current Constitution can hold as that process takes place.

Comments (9)

How anybody except those who want to overthrow our nation can think a constitutional convention is a good idea in this political climate is beyond me. What I want to know is just WHO is funding the dishonest “conservative” grifters like Mark Meckler pushing this thing on the right. Obviously there is big money at play.

October 30, 2023 Danny Rodriguez Reply
Many who discuss this issue seem to forget about the fallibility of human nature and how Americans have forgotten the Purpose of Government. Americans as a rule think like socialist, communist and fascist now. The Convention of States lobby knows it. They would have to be insane or dead not to know. Americans beg for more government handouts every day and COS pretends like we have constitutional scholars on every corner.

October 30, 2023 Matthew Rhodes Reply
“The solution, then, is not to change the Constitution or even throw it out, but to obey it.”

Good luck! This is a “solution” that will never come to pass, given the state of things in this once-great republic. Not when the electorate in this country is both “uneducated” and “uninformed.” The proof? Just look at the kind of people who are elected to public office.

October 30, 2023 Hans Bosse Reply
GAVIN NEWSOM IS NOT A LEFTIST –HE IS A MONEY GRUBBING POLITICIAN LIKE THE REST OF THEM–HIS CORRUPTION IS OF A PIECE WITH LINDSAY GRAHAM –THERE ARE NO LEFTISTS IN THE COUNTRY AND HAVE NOT BEEN FOR YEARS–DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT CORRUPT PUTZ IS A LEFTIST IN THE SAME WAY GENE DEBS WAS?

October 30, 2023 robert alpert Reply
I believe the best way to go about is secession. I would prefer radical federalism but that would require h 14th and commerce clause to be tightened up. No chance. Best to find the large swath of America that prefer the constitutional limited government and unify with the 1789 constitution than go meeting up with communists to try to convince them. Let the communists be communists in a different country.

October 31, 2023 Default Username Reply
Mr. Newman’s article on a Constitutional convention may come to a correct conclusion, but I am afraid much of it is wrong-headed. Contrary to his recitation of the U.S. Constitution’s sterling history, it has essentially fallen apart several times over its history.
Indeed, it failed most dramatically approximately just seventy years after its inception. And why? Largely because the citizenry did not know or understand what had been agreed upon in 1787… the nature of that agreement… and their rights and duties thereunder.
It has failed periodically thereafter mostly because enough of the general electorate demanded its radical alteration, and there existed enablers who would satisfy this demand, but didn’t want to be constrained by Constitutional strictures, i.e., having to go through the trouble of amendment/convention. I suppose this might be preferable to revolution.
I am afraid Mr. Newman remarks to the effect that any problems with the Constitution today “could be fixed by enforcement” are facile observations. Surely he recognizes that very much of the electorate absolutely do not want that. The electorate generally, and/or their representatives, and/or the powers-that-be, refuse to operate under any authentically reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and you can’t make them. They either understand the Constitution differently, or they want the Constitution to be other than what it is.
And what of those arguably unconstitutional phenomena that have now been welded into the infrastructural fabric, e.g., federal roads, paper money, social security, school desegregation, etc… (the Louisiana Purchase?)? Those are never going to be undone. So why not make them formally legal? After all, a disrespected Constitution only encourages the practice of flouting it.
When parties to an agreement don’t like or understand the agreement, normatively they should draft a new one. But I see the merit in Mr. Newman’s conclusion, in part because a convention would empower the very people who have clamored for, and gotten, vast overreach. The Right conventionalists are playing a dangerous game, where the cure may prove worse than the disease. Certainly post-hoc legitimization of all that the electorate seems to favor, plus the threat of a loathsome wish list, would be on the table. In contrast, all of the possible improvements, e.g., massive transfer of power back to the States, would be highly unlikely to come to fruition. And moreover, why would anyone think that a new Constitution would be enforced in the long run with any more sincerity than the current one?
The only reason I can see for a Rightist to possibly favor a convention would be if he hoped to see the United States break up. That is, whether seen as an agreement amongst the peoples as the States, or amongst people as individuals, surely we can agree that the Constitution is itself an agreement, or the product of one. One of the upshots of this is that, if two parties can’t agree, then the contractual union between them is no more.

October 31, 2023 Bob Salyer Reply
Playing with dynamite.
Big Soros money has been financing this for decades. They have amendments written and ready to submit that would destroy the bill of rights and water down the essence of the constitution. They are wringing their hands in anticipation of pulling this off.
We would be very wise to avoid this disasters.

October 31, 2023 Troy Reply
This is NOT a constitutional convention. It is a Convention of States as allowed in the second half of Article V of the Constitution. It was put there because the Framers foresaw a time that the government would run amok and overstep its boundaries and the congress could not be the one to fix it because it broke it.

The entire Constitution would not be subject to revision. Only amendments such as term limits, balanced budget, restrictions on the administrative states and the like, would be proposed by the Convention of States and then they would go out to the states for ratification.

It would help if people go and educate themselves on the subject by going to ConventionofStates.org to get the full story and the process as laid out in history.

It would also help to read Mark Levin’s book, “The Lliberty Amendments” to learn some amendments that would help regain control of the government by the people.

The purpose is to take back the government and put it under control as the Framers designed.

By the way, this would be a dagger to the heart of Soros.

November 13, 2023 Dee Stafford Reply
Alex Newman seems to lack a complete understanding of how the Constitution was designed to work. He opens his article with a mischaracterization of an Article V, Convention of States by calling it a ‘constitutional convention’. Article V describes the methods for amending Constitution, not abandoning it.
Newman makes the same mistake that all Progressives want us to make when referring to the Convention of 1787. And while not calling it a ‘Runaway’ convention, he insinuates that the Framers “threw out the whole Articles of Confederation” after the Convention started.
In fact, the Articles of Confederation had failed as a framework for the government of the new nation. It gave the Confederation Congress no power to govern. The Confederation Congress had no authority to call a convention or dictate its content. And, while the Confederation Congress did issue a letter in February 1787 endorsing the States call for a Convention and recommending that the States amend the Articles of Confederation, it was only a recommendation.
Consequently, the Convention of 1787 was called by the States “to devise such provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” The purpose of the Convention from the initial Call was to create a new and better form of government. In fact, 10 of the 13 States made it clear from the beginning that they intended to follow the guidance issue in the Call to create a constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union. They all instructed their delegates (then called commissioners) to pursue that goal. The two states that instructed their commissioners to amend the Articles (New York and Massachusetts) changed their instructions when the Convention started. (Rhode Island did not participate.)
Newman is correct in saying that most of the trouble has come from “violations” of the Constitution. He doesn’t however address why those in power are willing to violate that document. The answer to that question is easy. Those in power covet more power and they want to line their pockets with money. The Framers of the Constitution believed that those elected to office would be men (and women) of integrity and honesty. The Founders put too much faith in human nature. Consequently, they did not put sufficient restrictions on those elected and appointed to power. That is a significant defect. Rather, they created a method for amending the Constitution if future circumstances required it. Because the States originally had a vital role in Federalist system, Article V gave the States a way to amend the Constitution if it became necessary.
Those who claim that all we must do is obey the Constitution fail to recognize most of the ‘violations’ are the result of defects and because those defects benefit those in positions of power, they (our elected and appointed senior officials) will not do anything to change the system. Because they will not restrain themselves, it is incumbent on the people to act. Rather than a rebellion, a Convention of States to amend the Constitution is a better solution.
Since the beginning of the Colonies, there have been more than 40 conventions called by the States. Most have been to address regional problems. In no instance have the commissioners sent by the states violated their instructions. When the solution to the problem exceeded the authority of the commissioners, the Convention was ended without resolution (As was the case with the Annapolis Convention of 1786 which led to the Call for the Convention of 1787). Point in fact, there has never been a ‘runaway’ convention.
Any Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution would be bound by the parameters laid out in the Call. Commissioners attending such a convention would be limited to discussing only those issues cited in the Call. The current Convention of States Project is limited to three areas; Term Limits on Congress and Senior Officials, Fiscal restraints on the government, and limiting the overreach of Federal Agencies. The Convention would not be allowed to address any other issues and any attempt to raise other issues of attack the existing Constitution would be ruled out of order.
If the people, through action by the States, do not correct the defects that make violating the Constitution easy, the corrupt power and money hungry politicians will continue to herd the people, like lemmings over the cliff.

November 14, 2023 David W. Williams Reply

Cancel Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Leave a Reply

Cancel Reply