Thoughts Aloud

Now, here is a thought provoking website: “Friends Of the Article V Convention” that I need to explore further.

Heretofore, I have gotten nervous every time I hear someone mention a Constitutional Convention, because I thought much mischief could be done to our basic rights by the Left, who would love to, for instance, abolish the Second Amendment.

These folks appear to be wishing to preserve and/or rekindle the original intent of the document, and reverse some of the perversions of it, which have put too much power in DC. I need to think more about this; but one blog entry is certainly provocative of such thought:

A Constitutional Convention should not be convened lightly, but these are not ordinary times thanks to the accumulating damage from a progression of power hungry presidents going back to Nixon. People are recognizing exactly this as a problem, and thus the volume of discussion on the desirability of “revolution”. Well, a Constitutional Convention can be revolutionary, and would represent revolution in its most peaceful and effective form.

If we want every luminary in the land involved in the discussion of where to take this nation (and, indeed, the world) from here, we need only structure our Convention in that manner. With this tool, our choices are infinite.

Nor should we fear it, because this is the ultimate in government of, by, and for the people. There is only a small segment of our population that is stupid enough to be worrisome during a process that would be the most closely watched of anything in our entire lives.

There is no higher body politic than “the people”. All else in government flows from that (the consent of the governed) and are mechanisms created solely for our convenience. Now, however, there is a consensus forming that the system, itself, is not functioning correctly. Is it malfunctioning because of a fault in the system, or because of something separate from the design of the system? Those are the kinds of issues that a wide ranging Constitutional Convention can hammer out. And we need fear no proposed changes because all proposals are subject to ratification.

Once, a very long time ago, the country invested the time, energy, money, and talent to hammer out a blueprint of a social contract, and created a glorious work product. Now, however, there are real questions about whether it still can and will take us where we want, as a nation, to go. Or is the question only that the journey has become vastly more complex, and we only need to try to reach another consensus on the destination that we want to strive for?

In any event, a Constitutional Convention provides the framework within which such an important and wide ranging national discussion can be held. We know what happens when we break into groups that talk past each other. A Constitutional Convention constitutes a forum where everyone in the country would listen to every idea and viewpoint because the publicity would tell them that this is the single most important thing that has happened in our nation since the last time that we all made the effort to talk and listen to each other.

It occurs to me that if I have already given up on there being any future for America; that our only recourse will soon be another revolution; or that it is time for secessionist movements to break it apart; then how much harm would be done by trying an Article V convention? Any thoughts? â—„Daveâ–º

3 Responses to “Constitutional Convention?”