I ConCon, You ConCon

Everybody do the ConCon

One of my biggest pet peeves is the notion that a Constitutional Convention (also known as an Article 5 Convention, citing the U.S. Constitution Article 5 on amending the Constitution, would somehow rescue us from our national maladies.

My short answer is:
*If you can’t control your senators and how they vote

*If you can’t control your congressmen and how they vote

*If you can’t control your governor

*If you can’t control your state legislators

*If you can’t control your courts

. . . what makes you think you can control a select group of delegates to merely the most important national meeting since 1789? Little Jimmie Madison knew what he was doing . . . and what he couldn’t do.

I’ll get back to that in a minute. One of the problems that the pro-ConCon people ignore is that there are nearly as many “blue” people out there as “red” people. A quick look at the top four “blue” states by population (CA, NY, IL, MA) shows that they have a total of 66.7 million people. The top four “red” states (TX, FL, OH, and AZ) have 69 million. There are four states that have recently flipped back and forth—-VA, MI, PA, and WI with a total of 37 million. So any apportionment of delegates by population would be roughly a draw of red, blue, and indie.

”No,” you say, “the state legislatures would apportion delegates by who controls the state legislatures.” On the surface this seems better, as there are 30 “red” states and only 17 “blue” states. But many of these majorities are razor thin: only a few seats determine control of AZ and VA as of today, for example. But even then don’t be so sure those appointed by state legislatures would be set on enacting the changes you want. For example, when it comes to redistricting, we have seen several blue states viciously re-draw maps to DemoKKKrats’ advantage. But we’ve also seen several red state legislatures punt to an “independent commission,” which always minimizes Republican gains. (Just look at recently redrawn maps of Arizona and North Carolina, vs, say, Illinois to see the difference). Now do you trust the state legislators?

But it gets worse from a purist viewpoint. Remember those blue states with their 66.7 million people and their delegates? Throw any unanimous decisions out the window. Nothing would be accomplished without . . . compromise. There’s that dreaded word.

Say you favor a ConCon for protections of gun rights. Say you even get it. What do you have to give up to get it? Abortion? Say you want to audit the Fed. Do you have to give up student loan debt forgiveness? And I’m just tackling a few of the more obvious ones. Trust me, the devil is in the details and (as we see with today’s Constitution) an enormous number of apparently innocuous changes would lead to calamity later.

The point is, no convention can guarantee that “your” issues and only “your issues” are the ones addressed.

Let’s go back to the U.S. Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787. The delegates first vote was not to ditch the Articles of Confederation. Their first vote was to keep the proceedings secret. Why? Because they knew they would need to compromise—-and if word of individuals “caving” on this or that issue got out, state legislatures would recall them immediately. Instead, (fortunately for us) the states were presented with a fait d’accompli and had to ratify it as it was or not. Of course, enough concern arose that a Bill of Rights was added to the original document. Nevertheless, can you imagine what would go on in secret today with such a conglomeration of squidpickles? We’d be lucky they didn’t pass a bill making us all serfs!

Getting back to my first point, the “rogue elector/rogue delegate” issue is always answered by, “they have to report back to the states.” Again, however, if the minority (say, blue states) was smart, their issues that were included in the final would be carefully massaged that many red states would go along with them. The “blues” would be careful NOT to send Occasional Cortex or Illicit Mullah Omar as their delegates, but much craftier legislators who would know how to insert oppressive ideas without framing it in explosive language. There would be sufficient red state legislatures (remember many of these are RINO red or teetering toward blue) to ignore the small chunks of feces while praising the overall stew. Yet it would be precisely these issues that would, in 20 or 30 years, bring us right back to where we started.

The antebellum South spent the better part of 40 years seeking a Constitutional protection for slavery. (This should tell you that slavery was not protected in the Constitution because the word slave did not appear. Slaves were “unfree PERSONS” and personhood was destined to win over the definition of slaves as property). Nevertheless, in “compromise” after “compromise,” the South continued to believe it had secured permanent protection for slavery: in the Missouri Compromise; in the Compromise of 1850, in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. With each supposed gain, the South found slavery more at risk than ever.

A dedicated, rabid minority who are completely united will always defeat a majority who are either ambivalent about some issues or think it needs to “be civil” to the other side.

If any of you think that a ConCon would metaphorically consist of a majority of Radical Republicans bent on destroying the DemoKKKrat Party and its power forever, think again. A ConCon would only be another Missouri Compromise, evading the real solution of forcing people to choose one way or another.

Larry Schweikart

Rock drummer

Film maker

NYTimes #1 bestselling author

Political pundit

For even more truth-based current events, politics, and history content + resources, check out my VIP membership below

https://www.wildworldofhistory.com/vip