In the United States, we possess a standard system of measurement of what government can and cannot do: the U.S. Constitution. These standards provide a solid foundation on which government may rest. Imagine that you and a team of workers construct a house, each using your own standard of measurement instead of industry standards. The house will inevitably face instability and collapse. The solution remains not to create a new system of measurement that matches up to your own redefinition, but to return back to the original standard of measurement and proven foundational system.
However, the U.S. Congress is currently trying to use it's own standard instead of relying upon our current standard, created by the Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result, efforts have arisen calling for another constitutional convention (con con); though this is not the first time these calls have been made, efforts to call a Constitutional Convention to stop Congress from ignoring our Consitution is not the solution.
Efforts calling for a Con Con came strongly in the 1970s and 80s, and even as current as 2008, to pass good amendments such as a balanced budget amendment. These efforts were not successful becausethe evidenced danger of the Constitution being entirely rewritten outweighed arguments that only good amendments would be added. This danger still remains.
It must be understood that the con con endeavors today are not solely of radical Marxists or rabid leftists to recreate a new foundation to lead America to pure communism; it is largely an undertaking of conservatives and self-identifying Republicans who do not like the current functioning of our government and administration. The danger, however, remains the same.
James Madison discussed these very threats when, in November of 1788, he wrote:
“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 appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently giver greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union 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.”
Should a Con Con take place,myriad “bipartisan” compromises wouldinevitably lead tothe reshaping or even complete reconstruction of our current Constitutioninstead of the simple addition of a few amendments.
The question must also be asked: If trust in our current administration is at an all-time low, why would we hold faith in their abilities to resist sculpting our current standard of law to their own liking? If Americans do not believe that our administration effectively represents our core beliefsin their contemporary policies, why do we believe that they could successfully do so in the proposed shaping of our Constitution? Do we trust our leaders to make the decisions as to what actually “needs” amending, or as to what changes would ensue?
Our Constitution was created by our Founding Fathers to protect the freedoms they had suffered to live without. Several generations have passed since our Founding Fathers met, and not having lost our freedoms completely since then, nor knowing ully a life without them other than the writings of our ancestors and the faded pages of history, or perhaps the examples of other countries, we would be wise to heed their words.
Conned by the Con Con: An Argument for Traditionalism
In the United States, we possess a standard system of measurement of what government can and cannot do: the U.S. Constitution. These standards provide a solid foundation on which government may rest. Imagine that you and a team of workers construct a house, each using your own standard of measurement instead of industry standards. The house will inevitably face instability and collapse. The solution remains not to create a new system of measurement that matches up to your own redefinition, but to return back to the original standard of measurement and proven foundational system.
However, the U.S. Congress is currently trying to use it's own standard instead of relying upon our current standard, created by the Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result, efforts have arisen calling for another constitutional convention (con con); though this is not the first time these calls have been made, efforts to call a Constitutional Convention to stop Congress from ignoring our Consitution is not the solution.
Efforts calling for a Con Con came strongly in the 1970s and 80s, and even as current as 2008, to pass good amendments such as a balanced budget amendment. These efforts were not successful becausethe evidenced danger of the Constitution being entirely rewritten outweighed arguments that only good amendments would be added. This danger still remains.
It must be understood that the con con endeavors today are not solely of radical Marxists or rabid leftists to recreate a new foundation to lead America to pure communism; it is largely an undertaking of conservatives and self-identifying Republicans who do not like the current functioning of our government and administration. The danger, however, remains the same.
James Madison discussed these very threats when, in November of 1788, he wrote:
“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 appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently giver greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union 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.”
Should a Con Con take place,myriad “bipartisan” compromises wouldinevitably lead tothe reshaping or even complete reconstruction of our current Constitutioninstead of the simple addition of a few amendments.
The question must also be asked: If trust in our current administration is at an all-time low, why would we hold faith in their abilities to resist sculpting our current standard of law to their own liking? If Americans do not believe that our administration effectively represents our core beliefsin their contemporary policies, why do we believe that they could successfully do so in the proposed shaping of our Constitution? Do we trust our leaders to make the decisions as to what actually “needs” amending, or as to what changes would ensue?
Our Constitution was created by our Founding Fathers to protect the freedoms they had suffered to live without. Several generations have passed since our Founding Fathers met, and not having lost our freedoms completely since then, nor knowing ully a life without them other than the writings of our ancestors and the faded pages of history, or perhaps the examples of other countries, we would be wise to heed their words.
