Push for constitutional convention gathers steam



< Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the U.S. are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn’t done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution.

Although it’s still not likely to be successful, the effort is more serious than before: Already, more than two dozen states have called for a convention. There are two ways to change or amend the founding document. The usual method is for an adjustment to win approval from two-thirds of the Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. There have been 27 amendments adopted this way.

The second procedure is separate from Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states, or 34, to call for a convention. The framers thought this was necessary because Congress wouldn’t be likely to advance any amendments that curtailed its powers. But this recourse never has been used. >

< But much of the current impetus comes from fervent fiscal conservatives. This includes calls for an amendment requiring a balanced budget and other restraints on the federal government’s spending and taxation powers.

A constitutional convention is a rallying cry for right- wing talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin; the idea has been endorsed by Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, both conservative Republicans. An influential backer is the American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, an organization of conservative state legislators and private sector lobbyists that advocates for corporate interests. >


Extremely bad idea.

Special interests will take over and every crackpot in the country will try to rewrite the law of the land to suit their agenda. No matter what the outcome, a new constitution will be either too liberal or too conservative; depending on who you ask.

Better to stick with amendments.


The article is misleading. What is being supported is not a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution, but a convention of the states to propose new amendments. This comes from Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Any amendments proposed would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states which is 38.


We already have a crackpot doing just that!


An idea whose time I pray will never come. Beyond awful. I wonder what would be left of the First Amendment by the time the PC police got done with it - “Freedom of religion” but only for those whose practices incorporate the latest “diversity” provisions and themes? So you don’t ordain female or transgender clergy? You dont perform same-sex weddings? Your congregation doesn’t mirror the statistical profile of the minority population? Sorry, we can’t license you as a church…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.