How close are we to this?

"...if two-thirds of the state legislatures demand one, Congress must call for a constitutional convention, which would have the power to propose amendments. As no such convention has been called, it is unclear how one would work in practice. In two instances — reapportionment in the 1960s and a balanced federal budget during the 1970s and 1980s — attempts to use this process have come extremely close to triggering a constitutional convention. The apportionment debate of the 1960s fell only one state short of the required number of states."  Wiki

--------------------------------------------------------------

The original constitutional convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to write a completely separate document.  Once in Philadelphia the delegates seized control of the process and without authorization by Congress wrote a document to create a different form of government.  They then submitted this document to the states for ratification, not by the state legislatures, but rather by conventions of delegates elected just for this purpose.  This was a surprising process.  the resulting struggle over ratification was largely determined in the Virginia convention.  Before that happened two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island had voted against ratification.

I understand that a large number of states have passed resolutions calling for a new constitutional convention.  Is this so?  If it is, then I offer the opinion that once called such a constitution would become uncontrollable in its scope. The resulting document would have to be ratified by the states.  pl

http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention.html

 

Comments

[Adam L Silverman]

Sir,

What several states, Texas for instance, are doing is passing nullification resolutions based on fringe readings of the 10th Amendment. They really have no efficacy other than to keep the politics of resentment going and focused on things other than the given state's leadership. Some of the same leaders are also calling for, dropping hints about (again Texas in the person of the governor comes to mind), or trying to pass resolutions laying out when or under what conditions secession is warranted. Much of this is pandering, much of it is astroturfing to keep the base, currently preoccupied with ardent fervor, but little actual knowledge or understanding of the Constituion, perpetually wound up and aggrieved. All the same elites and notables doing the funding and organizing and the same demographics that they're always trying to organize. The only difference is that this time they're using and foregrounding faux constitutional language. The base is being fed a steady diet of some of the most extreme conspiracy theories. Ideas and groups run out of the mainstream decades ago (Buckley's banishment of the Birchers for instance) are now openly peddled on cable news, at part conventions, and being written into state party conventions and Texas textbook standards. In the latter case, as we've discussed here in the past, they've written Thomas Jefferson out of the history books, but a Phillis Schlafly in. The men leading that are all thought leaders in a variety of fringe religious, social, and political movements and now part of Mr. Beck's black robe brigade of religious leaders who will help take back the country. They'll happily continue to separate their flocks from what little wealth they have left and then capitalize on the desperation.