Do You Want to Con-Con?on August 22nd, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, the audio of last Saturday’s radio show is gone forever, which is sad because it was a good one. This being the case I have been encouraged to write about what we discussed during the show. It would be redundant to write about everything in last week’s show, as we usually take a lot from this website, which I am assuming you have read all of. One topic that we discussed on the radio that we haven’t written about yet is the reemergence of the topic of Constitutional Conventions or Con-Cons. Admittedly, when Chip and I talked about the recent calls by Mark Levin and the Citizens for Self-Governance, we had limited information on their proposals. However, since calls for Con-Cons are not new, we were able to talk lively about the pros and cons.
Well, I’m not sure we talked positively at all about the idea of calling a Con-Con. We often complain about the problems that the Con-Con calls attempt to solve, but we were not able to see a way in which opening up the U.S. Constitution to a complete overhaul could solve anything. In discussions I’ve had with people who heard the show, they say that there is no other way to put the Feds “back into their Constitutional box”, but there is no guarantee that a Con-Con will result in anything of the kind. The facts are these: Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” That is all that is said about calling a convention. There are no other rules in place in the Constitution or in any legislation. Once the Con-Con is underway, the congress can vote in their own rules. The fact is that the last time we had a Con-Con the goal was supposed to be “fixing” the Articles of Confederation. However, the smart folks in the room already had plans to work out something completely different and even had drafts of, what is now, the U.S. Constitution in their back pockets. I’ve read that Levin thinks this is a rude argument because it indicates that the U.S. Constitution was created illegally. But the point is quite the opposite; what the framers did was ABSOLUTELY legal and all in order of business which is exactly why it could happen again.
Another point Chip and I tackled was the belief that a Con-Con would be much more civilized since it will be run by the states and not those out-of-touch inside-the-beltway Congressmen and Senators. Really? Has anyone been to Richmond lately? I know you all have been paying attention during our meetings when we celebrate the handful of states that are taking real stands against the Feds. There are people in Colorado trying to separate into a new state because they cannot get their state legislature to honestly represent them. The state reps would be under immense pressure from their federal counterparts, besides, I do not believe that we can trust the state reps any more than we could the federal ones.
This is the extent of what we discussed during last Saturday’s show, but I am sure that this topic is just heating up again and we will talk about it again soon.