Comment: EXTREMELY dangerous

(See in situ)

coffee_sponge's picture

EXTREMELY dangerous

The only precedent we have is the original Constitutional Convention. It was called expressly to offer amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

Instead, the Con-Con ignored its mandate from the state legislatures that called it. They threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote a completely new constitution.

In addition, anything the convention proposed originally required a unanimous approval by all the states. Knowing this, the Con-Con changed the rules from requiring unanimous consent to simply a super majority.

The bottom line is there is no way to reign in a Constitutional Convention. A Con-Con has plenary authority to amend or re-write the Constitution, and then change the rules to ensure their edits are adopted. Over 2 centuries of precedents would go out the window. Courts would no longer look back at traditional understandings of the Constitution; they would go back only as far as the new Con-Con.

Indeed, a Con-Con could re-write the entire Constitution without changing a single word in it. All they would have to do is execute a comprehensive exegesis, re-defining what each word and phrase is supposed to mean. For example, the Second Amendment could be declared to only apply to the National Guard, not to the individual.

The problem we face today is a disregard for what the Constitution requires. Changing the wording or adding amendments alone will not stop the lawlessness we observe in our politicians.

Mark Levin needs to go back on his medicine.