For years, right-wingers have been clamoring for a Constitutional Convention. Just a few more states need to sign on, and then this can take place. The U.S. Constitution allows for just such an event to alter the document. Liberals, progressives and even centrists are concerned, and rightfully so, that a Constitutional Convention dominated by conservatives could pervert the law of the land and undo decades of progress. They could return the U.S. to the days when only wealthy white men could vote. They could shove in a “Human Life Amendment” that would declare life to begin at the moment of conception – which would open a serious can of worms that deserves its own essay. They could turn the USA into the worst fascist regime ever, and considering that this country not only has the world’s mightiest military but would be nearly impossible to invade (and thus liberate), woe unto freedom-lovers worldwide. Mexico just might pay for that border wall – to keep us out.
However, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So, why can’t liberals/progressives/left-wingers support a Constitutional Convention, causing it to backfire against right-wing extremists in the worst way possible? What if the ultimate attempt to “own the libs” turned into the liberals eating the conservatives’ dinner in the conservatives’ tent?
Let’s face it: The U.S. Constitution is an imperfect document. The Founding Fathers knew that, which is why they made provisions to amend it as time went by. So far we have added amendments to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, limit the number of terms a President can serve, and lower the voting age to 18, among other things. Activists have been pushing for the addition of the Equal Rights Amendment since the early 1970s; we may yet see it get ratified.
The only people who worked on the original document were white, male, and (at least on the surface) straight, in addition to being landowners. No women, people of color, or poor got to participate in its creation. Also, the Constitution was conceived and written in a time when slavery was widely accepted. Abolitionist movements had been around for centuries, but eliminating the “peculiar institution” from the U.S. entailed the destructive and bloody convulsions of a civil war.
The Second Amendment needs modification because, when the Founding Fathers wrote it, firearms were limited to muzzle-loaded muskets and breech-loading rifles, which had low rates of fire – the former could get 2 or 3 shots a minute, the latter 12. Those men had no way of anticipating modern assault rifles, machine guns, bazookas, etc. Gun nuts are big on parroting the second half of the 2nd Amendment, while conveniently forgetting the first half. The real purpose for the 2nd was to create a citizen’s militia as an alternative to a standing army. So, Mr. Gunfreak, what part of “well-regulated militia” don’t you understand? A bunch of poorly organized and scarcely disciplined yahoos is not a well-regulated militia.
When the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, there were only thirteen states, whose populations did not vary much. Today US states vary in population from around 578,000 (Wyoming) to over 39.2 million (California). In other words, a Senator from Wyoming represents far fewer people than one from California, yet he/she has as much of a voice in Congress. When a few small states have a lot more power than one large state, even if their combined populations are less than the big state, something ain’t right.
Every state except for Nebraska has a bicameral legislatures, and the districts for the State Senators, are drawn in a way to make the populations of districts more or less equal. Why can’t we make the national Senate work the same way? We’d need to change the Constitution, of course – and adding an amendment can take years, if not decades. Residents of small states will, of course, oppose such a measure since they don’t want to give up their power.
The Constitution is a vital part of our country, but not all of it is supposed to be carved in stone. That is why we have a process to amend it – that is, improve it. Since healthy societies progress morally and ethically over the years, laws need to be rewritten or even replaced from time to time. Lawmakers also need to take into account changing technology, such as telephones and social media, which the Founding Fathers could never have foreseen.
Perhaps a Constitutional Convention would actually be a good thing. The document that is the heart and soul of our country needs a lot of updating to put it in line with 21st century ethics and technology, as well as the current structure of the United States. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al would understand.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.