IS THERE ENOUGH WRONG WITH THE CONSTITUTION TO RISK DESTROYING ALL OF IT?
By Lisa Wamsley, 2013
The question is often asked, “What’s wrong with a Constitutional Convention?”
Perhaps the real question should be, “Is there enough wrong with the Constitution to risk destroying all of it?”
The next logical question would be, “Is the U.S. Constitution the problem, or the solution?”
It seems to me that the real problem is not the Constitution, but rather the government’s failure to comply with it and, with even more culpability, the lack of knowledge and apathy towards its content by the majority of the American people, including our elected officials.
Government, historically, will take whatever power and control that it can.
John C. Calhoun (1782-1850): “Government has within it a tendency to abuse its powers.”
Frederick Douglas (1818-1895): “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.”
Edmund Burke (1729-1797): “Those who have been intoxicated with power… can never willingly abandon it.”
Our Constitutional Republic was beautifully crafted to allow “We the People” to be the strongest arm of government, and we were to be left alone to govern ourselves in as many areas as possible. Our Constitution does not need a transformation, but rather a restoration. It seems that we have let old Benjamin Franklin down by not keeping the Republic.
THE SINGLE-ISSUE ARGUMENT
Rex E. Lee (1935-1996): “The only relevant precedent would indicate that the convention could not be so limited [to a single issue]. Anyone who purports to express a definitive view on this subject is either deluded or deluding. ”
Proponents of a Constitutional Convention (or Con-Con) frequently use the “single-issue” deception to entice unsuspecting, uninformed Americans into advocating for one. Lack of knowledge and feelings of desperation seem to be the impetus for many of those well-meaning Americans as they fall in line behind the often unseen people and organizations fueling the movement; those whose motives are to significantly morph the Constitution and obliterate its original intent.
Karl Marx (1818-1883): “A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.”
However, the single-issue argument is null and void right out of the chute. To call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution to require a balanced budget, or term limits, or a debt ceiling, etc., as many state legislatures have attempted, is a moot argument. The Constitution can be amended, for a single issue, via our legislative body, the Congress.
Are these proposed, single-issue amendments even necessary? For example, consider the highly advocated balanced-budget amendment. If our federal government, intended to be as small as possible and granted only very limited powers, were forced to live within its constitutional confines, would we be suffering from the exponentially explosive national debt? We don’t need a new amendment; we need the states to require Congress to act within their constitutional limits.
The original intent of our Founding Fathers is no secret if one desires to know and teach the truth. Their plethora of writings and speeches provide inexhaustible evidence.
Thomas Jefferson: “I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”
James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
Alexander Hamilton: “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.”
Our Founders recognized the need for a federal government but realized that if left to its own ambitions the American people (and states) would not remain a free and sovereign people. An out of control federal government is the reason we do not have a balanced budget. Neither an amendment through the amendment process nor through a constitutional convention is necessary.
Chaining the federal government within the constitutional box in which it is limited is the solution. If we fail to scale back the federal government’s encroachments upon our God-granted, constitutionally-protected, unalienable rights they will erode into oblivion; obscured in the annals of history.
Another highly energized argument for calling for a single-issue Constitutional Convention is to impose term limits. Although there is a profusion of elected officials who really should not be re-elected, are term limits for U.S. congressmen really an issue for the federal government to consider? The Founders did not seem to think so. They removed term limits which had been a part of the original Articles of Confederation (Article V), which preceded the Constitution. Nevertheless, a single amendment, if actually justified, can be accomplished by a simpler and much safer process that does not endanger the entirety of the longest lasting constitution in history.
WHO’S IN CHARGE
A Constitutional Convention, however, would take control away from the American people and our elected representatives, giving a select few (who would not necessarily be elected) the power to totally transform our nation and exterminate a form of government that has existed for nearly 225 years. Even the ratification by three-fourths of the states (Article V) is not a safeguard, as some tout. The state legislatures can be circumvented by the calling of state conventions to ratify changes (as was done with the 21st Amendment in 1933).
The most insidious warning bell, however, is that the Constitutional Convention delegates can change or abolish any rules for ratification, as was done in 1787. Although that outcome was exceptional, and some believe divinely inspired, there are no statesmen today who are even remotely close in caliber to our Founding Fathers whom we could rely on for a favorable outcome.
In the early 1980’s, our beloved Constitution nearly arrived at the terrible fate of a Constitutional Convention. According to the John Birch Society who has battled this campaign for 30 years, 32 out of the required 34 states had passed legislation to force Congress to subject the Constitution to the possibility of total evisceration, under the guise of the ‚single-issue‛ of requiring a balanced budget amendment.
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Warren Burger wrote: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
He also stated: “Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved<.could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn….we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence.”
Thankfully, through the efforts of great patriotic citizens and organizations, sixteen states have now rescinded all previous calls for a Constitutional Convention.
(2025 Update: 19 states have passed Convention of the States (COS) legislation, 34 are needed to present to Congress).
WE HAVE BEEN WARNED
James Madison (referred to as the Chief Architect of the Constitution) wrote in 1788: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; contain individuals of insidious views, who might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.
Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”
Many great patriots today believe that if a Constitutional Convention were to be allowed in today’s American society the result would be America’s Last Will and Testament.
The Founders would have agreed. Is the majority of Congress today guided by those same, unselfish and unwavering godly principles as our Founding Fathers?
Daniel Webster: “Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”
John Adams warned: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Does 21st century America have noble, godly leaders, of the same caliber as our Founding Fathers, who could be trusted with a runaway convention? Leaders who would put God first and set aside self-interest and potential bribes for the common good of our country? Leaders who are willing to risk their lives, liberty and sacred honor to do what is the best for the common good and not bow to special interests?
To anyone who might think they are, our collective response should be: “I know about George Washington. George Washington was a friend of liberty. You, sir or madam, are no George Washington!”
IS THE CONSTITUTION THE PROBLEM OR THE SOLUTION?
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to have an extremely limited federal government with specific enumerated powers (Article I, Section VII).
Will our government, which has trampled on our current constitution for too many years, willingly choose to live within the chains of a new constitution?
Probably not. Americans must become educated. We must know our Christian heritage, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents and study our Founding Fathers. We must recognize that our unalienable rights are granted by God (not the government) and that the role of government is to protect those rights.
The solution is to enforce the existing constitution, not amend it. The solution includes the firing of all governmental officials who refuse to obey their oath to “support and defend” it.
Are those who continue to push for a constitutional convention just unwilling to invest the time and energy to restore the Constitution? Or worse, do they have an ulterior motive to change our form of government?
