Despite the claims of Article V convention advocates, there is not sufficient legal evidence to support the claim that a constitutional convention could be limited to one issue.
Michael Leachman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Georgetown University Law Center Professor David Super explain that an Article V constitutional convention could not be controlled because, among other reasons:
At a 2011 panel convened to examine constitutional convention proposals, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe argued there is no need to debate the possibility of a runaway convention because there is no agreement or legal authority on what any constitutional convention would look like in the first place. Tribe, a renowned constitutional scholar, laid out numerous unanswered questions regarding the constitution convention process under Article V, including:
Ultimately, Professor Tribe said a constitutional convention would essentially “put it [the Constitution] all up for grabs,” and his doubts about a convention overcome his desire to experiment with the Constitution. At the same panel, Professor John Baker, a conservative legal scholar, echoed Tribe’s concerns, arguing that there is no authoritative way to establish what the founders meant by a “convention.”
In sum, whatever one’s views on the merits of prospective amendments to force a balanced budget or solve the problem of big money in politics, there is ample reason to reject the use of an Article V convention.
The alternate path to an amendment, through action by a two-thirds majority in Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of the states, has been used successfully through American history and can be again.It is a difficult process but one that ensure that changes will be made with the kind of care and deliberation our nation’s charter and our nation’s citizens deserves.
|Previous: Opposition from Across the Spectrum|