From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:20:17 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <rtjshINNg9k@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Frank Crary) writes:
|In article <962@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>I simply don't understand this fear of
|>a Constitutional Convention.  It would have no more power to change the
|>Constitution than the Congress does every day them meet.  Sure, a
|>Constitution Convention could propose any change to the Constitution they
|>like, including changing it completely.  But SO CAN CONGRESS!  In either
|>case, the chances of the 3/4 of the States passing the "Newstates
|>Constitution" or some other such non-sense is zero.
|
|Well, all issues of modifying the Constitution asside, I don't think we
|could automatically count on 3/4 of the States having to ratify the 
|amendments. The last time a Constitutional Convention was called, in 1787,
|the pre-existing ratification procedure was ignored: The Articles of 
|Confederation specifically required _all_ of the State legislatures to
|ratify any amendments to the Articles. However, the Convention totally
|revised the system of government, and declared that the new Constitution was
|valid if ratified by nine of the States, in specially called ratification
|conventions (e.g. bypassing the State legistatures).
|
|Today, the Constitution calls for 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment
|before it is valid. But what prevents a modern Constitutional Convention
|from inventing whatever ratification process they like? (Other than the
|fear of starting a civil war...)

Only the same thing that limits Congress from doing the same (or for the
President suspending the Constitution).  There is the Supreme Court, but in
the end, it boils down to us in all three cases.  Sure, I suppose (just like
Congress) a Constitutional Convention *could* propose anything (restoring
slavery, making sex a capital crime, making Lawrence Welk God-King of the
universe, etc), but that doesn't mean there is a realistic chance of it
happening or that they would get away with it if they did.

I still don't see any reason to be more concerned about a Constitutional
Convention than about Congress.*  They have the same power (with regard to
suggesting changes or additions to the Constitution) and the same limits on
that power.  That isn't to say there is no reason for concern, but let's
keep things in perspective.

As to what happened during the first Convention and what they got away with,
I suspect that had more to do with the people involved and the respect and
authority they carried with the people than with any problem inherent in the
process.  There is no George Washington around to chair a Convention this
time around (a fact those against a Convention are only too happy to
concede) and hence it will be viewed more skeptically than last time.  In
any case, are you really unhappy with results last time?

* The only difference I can see is track record, which I admit is zero.  The
first Convention doesn't count.  After all, it wasn't called under this
Constitution nor did they have the Supreme Court to hold them in line.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!