From TribTalk: Greg Abbott's right about one thing: We should amend the Constitution

The author says up from that he agrees with very little of what Governor Abbott has to say, but seems to think that his proposals for modifying the Constitution are worth while, and that a nation-wide discussion of if and how the document should be changed is a good thing.

- Click here for the article.  

The only way to make sense of Abbott’s remarks is to view them as acknowledgment that the Constitution we have, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, may not be the Constitution we want to structure our politics in the future. I couldn’t agree more with the governor — with whom I usually agree on very little — in this case. We are long overdue for a serious discussion about the adequacy of a very old Constitution drafted for a very different country and world. Where Abbott and I almost certainly disagree is on what the particular defects of the Constitution are.

My own favorite presidential campaign was that of 1912, when all four candidates — Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Eugene Debs, and William Howard Taft — offered serious suggestions about constitutional reform or, as in the case of Taft, defenses of the constitutional status quo. Perhaps as a result, the ensuing decade featured four genuinely important amendments, even though one of them (the 18th Amendment, which introduced Prohibition) was later judged to be a failure and repealed. But that decade exemplified the view, as explicated by Publius in the very first Federalist, that Americans were in fact capable of engaging in genuine “reflection and choice” about how we wished to be governed.

The ensuing century, alas, has seen a diminution of that faith. Most of us seem scared to death (sometimes for legitimate reasons) of the viewpoints and political preferences of those who disagree with us, and the idea of a new constitutional convention, as I have learned over the last decade while advocating one, is likely to provoke horror. But to fear such change is, ultimately, to believe that the promise of a truly democratic politics is impossible because “We the People” are no longer capable of engaging in sufficient “reflection and choice.”

I'd like to point out that the last sentence points to the precise reason why the state of Texas wants its students to take two classes in government. It allows - hopefully - for the knowledge necessary to engage in reflection and choice.

Read up on the author - Sanford Levison - here.

From the Congressional Research Service: The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress

These guys look at everything. This may be the most authoritative place to get information about the various legal and constitutional issues associated with the proposed convention - which I now know is referred to as an "Article V Convention.

- Click here for the report.

Here's its summary:

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways of amending the nation’s fundamental charter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, may propose amendments to the states for ratification, a procedure used for all 27 current amendments. Alternatively, if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply, 34 at present, Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.... ” This alternative, known as an Article V Convention, has yet to be implemented. This report examines the Article V Convention, focusing on contemporary issues for Congress. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress examines the procedure’s constitutional origins and history and provides an analysis of related state procedures.

Significant developments in this issue have occurred recently: in March 2014, the Georgia Legislature applied for a convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment, revoking its rescission of an earlier application; in April 2014, Tennessee took similar action. While both applications are valid, they may revive questions as to the constitutionality of rescissions of state applications for an Article V Convention and whether convention applications are valid indefinitely. Either issue could have an impact on the prospects for a convention. In other recent actions, the legislatures of Ohio, in November 2013, and Michigan, in March 2014, applied to Congress for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment; these are the first new state applications since 1982 and are also the 33rd and 34th applications for the balanced budget amendment convention. If all 32 previous related state applications are valid, it is arguable that the constitutional requirement for requests from two-thirds of the states has been met, and that Congress should consider calling a convention.

Internet- and social media-driven public policy campaigns have also embraced the Article V Convention as an alternative to perceived policy deadlock at the federal level. In 2011, the “Conference on a Constitutional Convention,” drew participants ranging from conservative libertarians to progressives together to discuss and promote a convention. In December 2013, a meeting of state legislators advocated a convention, while the “Convention of States” called for a convention to offer amendments to “impose fiscal restraints and limit the power of the federal government.” Also in 2013, the advocacy group Compact for America proposed the “Compact for a Balanced Budget,” an interstate compact that would provide a “turn-key” application, by which, with a single vote, states could join the compact; call for a convention; agree to its format, membership, and duration; adopt and propose a specific balanced budget amendment; and prospectively commit themselves to ratify the amendment.

Congress would face a range of questions if an Article V Convention seemed likely, including the following. What constitutes a legitimate state application? Does Congress have discretion as to whether it must call a convention? What vehicle does it use to call a convention? Could a convention consider any issue, or must it be limited to a specific issue? Could a “runaway” convention propose amendments outside its mandate? Could Congress choose not to propose a convention-approved amendment to the states? What role would Congress have in defining a convention, including issues such as rules of procedure and voting, number and apportionment of delegates, funding and duration, service by Members of Congress, and other questions. Under these circumstances, Congress could consult a range of information resources in fashioning its response. These include the record of the founders’ original intent, scholarly works cited in this report and elsewhere, historical examples and precedents, and relevant hearings, reports, and bills produced by Congress from the 1970s through the 1990s. 

From Slate: Give Me Amendments or Give Me Death: Inside the secretive campaign by state legislators to pass conservative amendments in 34 states and rewrite the Constitution.

It's been brewing for a while. I'll post separately on the constitution in exile movement, a controversial term that refers to the various efforts made to roll back the expansion of national government - and the objectives of that expansion - that began in the New Deal and continued during the Great Society. The election of Barack Obama promised to continue this expansion, so this gave an impetus to some to determine how to effectively roll it all back, and they came to the conclusion that a state convention - which is authorized in Article V - was the best way to do it.

Here's a look at an early meeting proposing the approach. I want to highlight the mention of the American Legislative Exchange Council and Mark Levin. The former is an increasingly influential interest group that represents primarily business groups and tries to limit national involvement in business affairs. The latter is an influential radio host who has promoted such a convention on his show and in books.

- Click here for the article.

The newest movement to save the republic began this past Saturday on the grounds of George Washington’s old estate. Shortly before 9 a.m., nearly 100 state legislators from 32 states filed into the library that sits above the museums of Mount Vernon. It was state legislators only; supporters (and reporters) learned that the hard way, as they called for details or were stopped at the security gates.

Inside, the legislators said a prayer, recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and got to work talking about how to form a convention of states that could amend the Constitution–without interference from Congress. They’d been brought to Mount Vernon by a team of five Republican legislators, who’d circulated the invitation back on Oct. 22. “Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states equal standing with Congress to propose constitutional amendments,” they wrote. “In light of the federal government’s struggle to effectively execute the will of the people,” they’d create a bipartisan and “politically pure” environment to figure this out.