The U.S. Constitution seems to be on its last leg, through no fault of its own. It’s just not being honored, obeyed, or upheld.
The U.S. Constitution is a masterpiece that has withstood the test of time. It was forged in the fire of a recent revolution and its founders had an incredible historical perspective and were deeply inspired in both their goals and their approach. It was an incredibly perilous process, but the document that emerged is directly responsible for the prosperity and peace America has known since then.
But a lot of serious problems have risen and festered in America since then. These fatal flaws weren’t in the original Constitution, but came out of ill-advised, underhanded amendments passed largely in 1913, namely the 17th Amendment which chose senators by popular vote and the creation of the Federal Reserve.
There is a lot of talk and many approaches to a “Constitutional Convention”, “ConCon”, or “Convention of States” as a way of fixing these and other problems (like adding term limits for senators and congressmen and forcing a balanced budget). There’s just one problem: a “runaway convention” where a ConCon is called to do A, B, and C, and instead they do R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, and suddenly America is lost. After-all, do we really trust todays politicians to rewrite the Constitution? I wouldn’t trust any of them to babysit my dog.
Many will discount the risk of a ConCon, or say we can avoid it “binding” the delegates to only do A, B, and C or nothing. Unfortunately that isn’t the way Article V of the Constitution is written. Once the ConCon starts all bets are off. We’ve only had one Constitutional Convention in our nations history and it was a runaway convention. It was only supposed to modify the Articles of Confederation. But they threw that document out entirely and started from scratch. They could do the same this time.
But perhaps there IS a safe method for a Constitutional Convention that anyone can get behind immediately. A ConCon is the last chance "We the People" (ie. the states) have to assert ourselves.
Imagine that a group or individual drafts a single proposed amendment to the Constitution, which is presented to their state legislature. Their state legislature ratifies the proposed amendment with a single-page, clear, unambiguous statement declaring their support of the proposed text as a Constitutional Amendment contingent on 37 other states ratifying the exact same proposed amendment, word-for-word. When the 38th state ratifies it (a Constitutional Amendment requires three-fourths of the states to ratify it) that IS a Constitutional Convention, just one not done in person and limited in scope to specific text that is known in advance.
If the proposed amendment never gets to 38 states then nothing happens and we’re only out the time and effort of making the push.
But, when the 38th state legislature agrees to the statement in support of the proposed amendment (all with the exact same text), at that instant, that amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the ConCon has to be done in person and involve long, protracted meetings with all-powerful delegates. The point of a ConCon is to give the states the ability to amend the Constitution as needed, as long as they have a super-majority of 38 or more states. This approach does that without the risk of a runaway convention, without the expense or fanfare, and on one specific topic at a time, known entirely in advance. There are no surprises and no back-room deals, just full transparency.
To make the process even safer a sunset clause could be added as part of the single-page statements calling for a ConCon. "If 38 states ratify this by December 31, 2020, the proposed amendment becomes a legal, binding part of the Constitution. If less than 38 states have ratified this by December 31, 2020 this attempt at a Constitutional Convention is null and void.".
The text doesn't need to be anything more than:
"Section 1. The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
Passing that single amendment will start the process of restoring representation to the people (the states), and would start to undo the stranglehold of lobbyists and the consolidation of power in DC.
If the federal government doesn't honor that amendment, then it is them that is going against the Constitution, and that fight will have to be fought. But it's time for the states to reassert themselves and restore the balance of power the Founding Fathers intended. Honestly, nothing else will save this nation.
After the 17th Amendment is repealed the next logical step would be term limits.
Please comment if you see this as a viable approach, or if you don’t please explain why. This is a healthy and needed discussion to have.