In light of the strenuous and successful campaign by the John Birch Society and other constitutionalist organizations over the past 25 years or so to preserve the Constitution by preventing the calling of a constitutional convention (con-con) as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, it was very disappointing to see a well-known constitutional scholar, Professor Kevin Gutzman, promote the concept on the Glenn Beck TV Show on Tuesday, November 10 (see embedded video below). Judge Andrew Napolitano was the substitute host due to Beck's appendicitis operation. As documented in my article, "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," posted on TheNewAmerican.com on June 23, both Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Napolitano had endorsed the idea of a constitutional convention on the Beck show earlier this year.

Although the idea of calling a constitutional convention has been promoted on Glenn Beck's TV Show several times this year, it must be pointed out that Beck posted a "Note from Glenn" on his website (below an article by Judge Napolitano dated May 15, 2009) in which he strongly opposes a con-con. Here's Beck's excellent position statement disavowing the whole concept of calling a constitutional convention:

Let’s be clear that no one is calling for a Constitutional Convention. The Judge has outlined what would need to be done, legally, in order for the 10th Amendment to have some real teeth put back into it. No one really wants a Constitutional Convention. Nobody on the left or the right really pushes for one for two reasons. First, no matter how limited the scope of the proposed constitutional convention if one actually takes place it’ll be almost impossible to restrict the changes that could be made to the Constitution. Remember that when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for their constitutional convention their orders were to do nothing more than “amend the Articles of Confederation.” By day three they had unofficially agreed to abolish the Articles and create a new form of government. If a constitutional convention were held today there would be no limits on what they could do and it’s very possible we end up with the Constitution shredded and in tatters. I don’t want to take that risk.

Second, I don’t trust our current crop of politicians to do the right thing. I don’t see a modern-day George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison. All I see are selfish politicians willing to do anything to get re-elected. I don’t want to put the future of my children and grandchildren in their fat money-stained fingers.

So let’s hold off on the constitutional convention but move forward with the gun legislation in Montana, Utah, Texas and other states in an effort to have the Supreme Court re-consider the 10th Amendment. Good people doing great things is all it takes to return America to what our Founding Fathers intended Her to be—a bastion of freedom and liberty!

-glenn

To give you some more context for why I say it was disappointing to hear Professor Gutzman recommend a con-con, here's an excerpt from "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention":

Although attempting to get the federal government back under control by amending the Constitution is very appealing to many conservatives and constitutionalists, it does not address the primary problem. The primary problem is that the three branches of the federal government do not adhere to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. Surprisingly, this indifference to the Constitution began with some of the decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall nearly 200 years ago. Over the years this indifference has grown slowly, but with the advent of the Obama presidential administration combined with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, we’re now witnessing almost daily naked displays of raw, unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government with regard to states, businesses, and individuals.

In this environment, simply amending the Constitution would not be sufficient to get the government back under control. However, there are numerous individuals and groups that still advocate constitutional amendments as the solution....

In a nutshell, the argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to consider and propose whatever amendments to the Constitution that it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” in much the same way that the Constitutional Convention that produced our current U.S. Constitution was a runaway convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. While most Americans are very thankful for the Constitution produced by our original Constitutional Convention in 1787, most Americans and certainly most state legislators, when fully informed of the downsides involved, oppose the convening of a new constitutional convention in our day. (For a video presentation of the arguments against a con-con, see the 36-minute “Beware of Article V” video on YouTube.com or BirchTube on JBS.org.)

Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued along the same lines when he vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley of Eagle Forum on June 22, 1988:

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."

 Here's the video of Professor Gutzman promoting a constitutional convention on the Glenn Beck TV Show on November 10:

After watching the video above of Professor Gutzman's recommendation for calling a constitutional convention, be sure to watch "Beware Article V," an excellent video produced by the John Birch Society in 1999 and embedded below that exposes the downsides of calling a constitutional convention.

If you agree that calling a constitutional convention would be too risky in the present political environment, then you should be contacting your state legislators in strong opposition to a con-con to be sure that they don't succumb to any new movement to have state legislatures petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. To understand the complicated situation of just how many states would be required to trigger a con-con, read "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention."

Your best educational tools for convincing your state legislators to oppose a con-con are the "Beware Article V" video above (also available on DVD) and a reprint of "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention." 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (14)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew said:

... The last time we had a constitutional convention, we ended up with an entirely new constitution. Admittedly, we were fortunate in that the constitution we ended up with was (and is) a pretty good one. I'm not so sure we want to play that game again, especially considering the number of Insiders who would go to any length to hijack any such convention. First, we use thew power of the ballot on ALL levels. Second, we use the states for nullification and reasserting state rights. If we ever end up with a NAU or something like that, we will be beyond a con-con anyway. There is a very narrow window where a con-con MAY be a second to last resort.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +3

rprew said:

And furthermore... Except for the repeal of a few ill-advised amendments, the Constitution doesn't need amending! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And even if we DID add an amendment or two as safeguards, that would be like installing a new burglar alarm after the break-in and while the burglars are still in the house. The problem isn't with the constitution, it's with the people in Washington who are abusing it. They've ignored it thus far. What makes anyone thing they are going to pay any attention to another paragraph or two? A con-con is insane. It IS A CON JOB!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +5

Sweet William said:

... rpew, I wholeheartedly agree. When I first looked into Professor Barnett's proposal, I initially believed there might be a legitimate and logical reason to support the idea. However, after studying the issue at great length, I can clearly predict the disaster such an idea would most likely create if put into practice. There is absolutely no intellectual reason for advocating a Constitutional Convention, in my opinion. There are so many alternate and successful avenues to utilize in our effort to correct current policy issues without ever having to make any type of amendment to our current Constitution. Making changes to the Constitution for the sake of rapid convenience, which is precisely what a "con-con" would be, would undoubtedly render the document meaningless within a short length of time, as special interests would surely define the terms. ~Will

report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +5

Dave Scholefield said:

	... As Art Thompson pointed-out: If Congress doesn't obey the Constitution we have now, why would it obey any other constitution?
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +3

Sweet William said:

	... Dave, very true, but even if Congress were obeying the current Constitution, why continually amend it in a fortuitous effort to correct policy? It is nothing but another form of Progressive ideology, precisely the intellectual form of thinking which has put the nation in its current state of detriment.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +4

rprew said:

	... Endless constitutional amendments are an attempt to apply subjective policy to an objective document. The end result is neither.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +3

rbrown said:

... The only reason the result of the 1787 convention was a good one was because of the moral, religious, and liberty loving nature of the delegates to the convention. He who controls the selection of delegates, controls the outcome of the convention. Considering that Congress shall be in charge of calling the convention, it is generally thought that Congress has the responsibility of designating the method of selection of delegates. That should keep you up at night!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2009
Votes: +2

rbrown said:

... The call for a Con-Con is based upon the false idea that flaws in the Constitution are the root of our problems. Only when you can clearly identify the root of the problem, can you arrive at the proper solution. That is why doctors seek to diagnose before prescribing treatment. The root of the problem is an ignorant citizenry. The people of this nation, by and large, are ignorant of the principle of liberty, the voting records of their elected officials, and the plans of those trying to undermine liberty in this nation. Based upon this, the solution is a nationwide re-education effort. The JBS is at the forefront of this effort.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2009
Votes: +4

Sweet William said:

... rbrown, I agree with your second comment to a small extent but disagree that it is an all-inclusive reasoning behind a "con-con". After having intensively studied the issue on several levels (inserting a moment to thank Mr. Greenley for his invaluable knowledge on the subject), I have come to realize that blaming the advocation for a "con-con" on ignorance is overly simplistic. Whilst ignorance is a contributing factor, from what I have found, the primary reasoning behind those advocating a "con-con" is naivete (believing our elected body consists of virtuous and noble persons) and an attempt to make rapid policy changes in governance. The reality is, few people, especially within the elected body, are virtuous or noble and the purchase power of special interests nearly always dictates the terms of government policy (hence, the current mess we are in as a nation...a result of corruption). ~Will

report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2009
Votes: +4

rbrown said:

	... Will, You are right. And the corrupt politicians are a symptom of a people who will tolerate corrupt representatives. A moral, religious and ever vigilant people will only tolerate moral, religious representatives.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2009
Votes: +4

Nicholas said:

... I have been opposed to a Con Con under the impression that the convention itself could ratify amendments without approval from state legislatures, however, if any amendments must still be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, and this process simply replaces Congress with special delegates elected by the people of the several states, I actually think that is a more reliable procedure than involving Congress. Congress as we know it is never going to pass amendments that will truly restrain their power. I think we're more likely to get those things from popularly-elected delegates.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 15, 2009
Votes: +1

Sweet William said:

... Nicholas, As Dave Scholefield quoted from Art Thompson previously, in essence, if elected officials are disregarding the Constitution to begin with, what leads one to believe they will do otherwise after a con-con? What we as citizens of the United States currently have in effect is a separate entity from the people, no longer of the people, which is in automatic mode of systematic operation. There is nothing a con-con can do to turn that reality around. The most effective counter-measure we can provide at the moment is by strengthening States Rights through the Tenth Amendment. ~Will

report abuse vote down vote up

November 15, 2009
Votes: +2

TF said:

... No sensible American would even begin to support a Con Con. Common sense dictates that we have alredy lost complete control of our legislators. They go to war against popular opinion. They fund private banks with public funds against the peoples best judgement. They take over Corporations that are failing from incompentant business decisions against public support and more. So how could any expect that these legislators would in any way bother to consider the needs of the public at a Con Con? The Constitution would be re-written to accomodate the very same people who control our legislators already and the so-called experts many of whom are members of the Rockefeller led Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission would completely control the agenda to undermine our present limits on government and complete our transformation to a Marxist inspired form of government. The dangers would be immense and immediate and it should be strongly opposed as it could spell the end of any remaining elements of the American way of life and freedoms.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 15, 2009
Votes: +1

Michael 1984 said:

	Glen Beck is a phony patriot!! Glen Beck is controlled opposition. That is obvious to me. Anyone who supports a constitutional convention is either very naive, or is a wolf in sheeps clothing. "My Mr. Beck, what big teeth you have."
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 21, 2009
Votes: -1