Convention wrong kind of invention

If a modern-day constitutional convention were to take place, the door would be held wide open for a crumb of potential wisdom and a wheelbarrow full of insanity to sneak through.

Just as the quest to cure baldness marches relentlessly on, so too does a cadre of citizens push its agenda of altering America’s guiding light the only way they can figure out how: By invoking Article V and mustering a meeting that could alter the U.S. Constitution to scratch their particular itches.

Coeur d’Alene is considered “ground zero” for the campaign to enlist Idaho’s support in the cause and is target territory for convention supporters. Only 12 state legislatures in the U.S. have hopped on the resolution bandwagon calling for a constitutional convention, and 22 more are needed.

Idaho should not be one of them.

What’s amusing is that some of the harshest condemnation of a convention of this sort is coming from the right, not the left. A fascinating 10-point pistol from the conservative Eagle Forum, published two years ago, blasts holes in the proposal so wide that even overweight independents could walk through.

For example, if such a convention were held, “liberal” giant states like New York and California would be empowered with extra political sway. Who’s to say, the Eagle Forum folks posit, that the liberals wouldn’t repeal the cherished right to bear arms? Or shove a right-to-abortion clause in the Constitution?

While that’s conjecture, it’s true that an Article V convention would open the entire document to change. No matter what any specific interest group would want to focus upon, everything would be fair game. That’s just plain dangerous.

Also from the Eagle Forum was this point that’s hard to argue with:

“Each of the Democratic and Republican Conventions is chaotic and contentious enough. A joint convention of both parties would have uncontrollable conflicts and an unpredictably bad outcome.”

A better approach than altering the U.S. Constitution is to hold accountable those responsible for federal management. Of course, that requires diligence, perseverance, and a level of civic participation beyond what many Americans have been willing to invest.

Put another way, who would you trust more: the Founding Fathers’ guidelines or the preferences of special interest groups being pushed today?

Thought so.