Posted by
Civis on Monday, March 16, 2009 8:09:00 PM
I want to understand the pros and cons of State legislatures petitioning the US Congress for a Constitutional Convention while they are drawing up and voting on resolutions advising the federal government to respect the 10th Amendment. My argument is a State cannot have true sovereignty to provide for the welfare of its citizens (with no federal strings) until the federal income tax burden is greatly reduced. I will take my chances if 34 States realize the importance of federalism enough to petition for a Convention that some "radical" re-write of the Constitution would not be able to pass 38 State legislatures or conventions.
I am interested in hearing arguments for and against a Convention movement. If you are against, how do you propose a State make a stand on principle today? They can turn down federal money all day long, yet its citizens still pay into the system.
The great Google has not convinced me otherwise just yet, but I am still looking:
1. Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention. (I kind of wish they failed at this one, but at least the correct process was followed and apparently Congress felt the pressure from the States voicing their will.)
2. Most recently, there has been a major movement to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. Unable to get action in Congress, supporters again turned to the convention method of amendment. To date, those behind the balanced budget amendment have convinced 32 states to submit convention petitions to Congress. Backers of the amendment need only two more states to compel Congress to call a convention.
3. Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."
Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in "participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster."