Sufficient exposure of a Constitutional Convention (a Con Con) as being a bad idea, has resulted in the tactic of changing the name to an Article 5 Convention – or its latest disguise, a Convention of States as proposed by Mark Levin. But, they are all the same thing. The same reasons that a Con Con is not a good idea apply regardless of the name used to sell it.
We are told that it would not be a runaway convention because the conditions would be decided before the assembly convened. But there is nothing to prevent the assembly from dictating the rules once assembled. And it is argued that 3/4ths of the states would have to ratify their proposals. But that could be changed as well.
The one time a Con Con was held, it was for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to allow the Confederation to levy taxes to pay for the War for Independence. Yet, the result was to totally scrap the Articles of Confederation and reduce the number needed for ratification which had been 100 percent of the states to two-thirds. A present-day one could totally scrap our Constitution and not require any states to ratify. Would you want to trust a convention today to improve the Constitution? Why take the risk?
In the Virginia Assembly, first the Democrats were for A Con Con and the Republicans opposed. Then it flipped flopped to just the opposite. Does this sound as though other factors are in play other than the merits or faults of the issue?
Also, since our legislators won’t honor their oath of office and abide by the Constitution we have now, do you think they would abide by a changed or newly amended Constitution? Consider: if we had legislators who abided by the current Constitution there would be no need for changing it.
The solution is to abide by the Constitution, not change it.
Sue Long North, VA