Does
Larry Sabato Really Want
A Constitutional Convention?
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
22 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Why
would a prominent law professor supposedly in favor of having the nation’s
second constitutional convention organize a symposium where the keynote
speaker is dead set against a convention? And why pack the three subsequent
panels with people against a convention? I kept asking myself these
questions as I attended the recent symposium that Larry Sabato had the
audacity to title “National Constitution Convention.”
When I first heard about
the event I was troubled by how it was being marketed as, literally,
a national constitutional convention – not a conference about
a second convention, or the case for the first time use of the option
in Article V of the Constitution to hold a convention of state delegates
to consider making proposed amendments. Why sell the event as a national
constitution convention? The answer became clear: to sell Larry Sabato’s
latest book that sets forth a large number of constitutional amendments,
most of which both the panelists and nearly everyone else examining
them rejects.
This raised another troubling
question: Why would someone who sincerely believes our nation needs
another convention, rather than relying on Congress to propose amendments,
purposefully set forth so many controversial amendments? History has
shown that the many attempts to get an Article V convention failed because
each of them was linked to advocacy for a specific amendment. When people
opposed an amendment they automatically opposed an Article V convention.
So here comes Larry Sabato who engineers a lot of public attention to
over 20 amendments that many will oppose. True, it brings attention
to amending the Constitution. But does he think that doing this will
actually promote support for the nation’s first Article V convention?
It certainly did not do that at his symposium. Consider these public
positions given at the event:
Keynote speaker Geraldine
Ferraro, former vice presidential nominee, could not have been more
anti-convention. She said she was “not a fan of a second convention”
and is “afraid of one.” While she articulated considerable
fears about the damage a convention could do, she failed to even mention
the safety net created by the Framers in Article V: the difficult ratification
process where three-quarters of the states would have to approve every
proposed amendment. Such an obvious bias cannot be overlooked when considering
her perspective and comments – so typical of political establishment
elites protecting the status quo.
The biggest event speaker
was Supreme Court Justice Alito who said he was “skeptical”
about the nation having the kind of talent for a second convention that
was present at the first one. “I’m skeptical we’d
be so fortunate if we tried it a second time,” he said. He seems
to not understand that our current corrupt, dysfunctional political
system has for some time not attracted the very best people. He also
failed to mention the 2006 decision he supported with the rest of the
Supreme Court to not consider a federal lawsuit, Walker vs. Members
of Congress, that dealt specifically with the obligation of Congress
to obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention.
Several panelists took the
position that Americans do not have sufficient civic literary or education
to support having a convention, and that we could not do better than
the original Framers, ignoring many of the subsequent amendments that
have been extremely important because they improved upon the initial
Constitution. Not one speaker recognized that there have been hundreds
of state constitutional conventions, none of which wrecked state constitutions.
Lance Cargill, Oklahoma Speaker
of the House, expressed concerns about a new convention causing political
and economic instabilities. Could one expect anything more from the
status quo political establishment? There was not one person on the
symposium panels that could be considered a true activist advocating
for an Article V convention as a critically need path to major political
reforms.
One of the panelists noted
that Sabato talks about “a new Constitution” and, of course,
that rightfully frightens people. In fact, all an Article V convention
can do is propose specific amendments to the current Constitution. It
just feeds opposition to a convention to speak of a “new Constitution.”
So why does Sabato do that?
Interestingly, one of Sabato's
proposals for a balanced budget amendment received sufficient applications
from the states to cause a convention call by Congress which it disregarded,
which he should know and take a strong position on.
Let me give Sabato deserved
thanks for pointing out a number of facts that theoretically should
build public support for an Article V convention. He has correctly emphasized
that the Founders gave us the Article V convention option because they
“didn’t trust Congress.” And he has made it clear
that Congress has refused to give Americans the convention option because
they fear changing the political system by which they have gotten their
jobs. “Congress is a burial ground for constitutional amendments,”
he said. He has also made it abundantly clear that the Founders did
not believe that the original Constitution was “perfect”
and that, indeed, they “never intended it to be sacred and untouchable.”
He has noted that the convention “was the Founders’ preferred
method.” He likes quoting Thomas Jefferson who believed in periodic
rebellions to safeguard American democracy. He should also quote Hamilton
who stated a convention call was "peremptory" and that "Congress
shall have no option" regarding a convention call.
In sum, on the one hand Sabato
recognizes the need for constitutional amendments and that the route
to getting important ones is through an Article V convention. On the
other hand, however, nothing he is doing in his efforts promoting his
latest book seem effective in actually building public support for the
very difficult task of getting – after 220 years – the first
Article V convention. How can we reconcile this dichotomy?
He expresses no sense of
urgency despite recognizing the current political and government system
is broken. “It will probably take a generation before anything
happens, if it happens then,” he said – and a generation
today means about 30 years. It would appear the professor is content
simply to write a book about the issues, stir up a lot of negative feelings
about a convention, but solve nothing regarding the problem.
He seems stuck in an academic
mindset rather than proudly arguing for reform through a convention.
He speaks promotes school mock constitutional conventions. In other
words, he seems to have capitulated to a pretty negative perspective
that despite having a big set of revolting conditions the country is
not ready for soon having an Article V convention to reform and fix
our broken system. Sabato knows that the Article V convention option
was put into the Constitution because the Framers anticipated that the
public might someday lose confidence in the federal government, and
he surely knows that that day has arrived.
As a co-founder of Friends
of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org I welcome more explicit
support for pressuring Congress to obey the Constitution and their oath
of office by acknowledging that there have been over 500 applications
from all 50 states for a convention. This more than satisfies the one
and only requirement specified in Article V. And Sabato knows that Congress
has never passed any law that in any way expands or re-interprets that
single requirement that two-thirds of states ask for a convention, upon
which Congress “shall” call a convention. It certainly would
help the nation if Sabato would talk more about all of these circumstances
than merely focus on a large set of contentious possible amendments
which if a convention is never called will never come to pass.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be
reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.