Thoughts about a Constitutional Convention
American citizens tend to hold the framers of the Constitution in very high regard. We’re appalled when anybody suggests the document that is the blueprint for this society is anything but perfect. Well, it’s not, but it’s certainly the best one around.
Those men, who were fortunate to participate in the drafting of the Constitution (what I wouldn’t give to have been one of them, my gender not withstanding), were a mixed bunch.
According to Wikipedia, six were land speculators, twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations. I’m just saying.
More to the point, there is nothing explicit in the Constitution about the self-evident truth that a human being is free to choose a mate and procreate at will. There’s some vague language in the Declaration of Independence about all men being created equal, but that leaves too much room for interpretation, and, besides, the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land.
The framers couldn’t not have known that one day, society would accept homosexuals as equals. It also never occurred to them that birth control, of which the Bible clearly disapproves, was, well, a God-given right. They couldn’t have imagined that people who didn’t believe in deities may be moral. In fact, the preamble (following which the Constitution lays out the structure of the government) says only:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How are we doing on the domestic tranquility front? General welfare anyone? They certainly meant well. There are just too many unresolved issues due to their vague, though elegant, prose.
They left the most important part, civil rights, to the Bill of Rights (which was crafted four years later), despite John Adams’ efforts to consolidate both documents.
One thing they almost got right. Article V leaves room for subsequent generations to modify the Constitution as societal condition or morality trends change. It also admits, I hope, that the framers knew they were only human and wanted more wise men (they did think it was always going to be men) to plug holes in the document, which they knew was imperfect.
Article Five spells out the ways in which a Constitutional Amendment may come to be. It reads,
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
So, basically, only Congress writes and votes on Amendments. Because, to the best of my Google-informed knowledge, never in U.S. history, since the original 1787 Constitutional Convention, have we had any.
A Constitutional Convention would never even consider an Amendment that prohibits people of any sexual preference to marry. The delegates represent the demographic makeup of the country better than any group of elected officials, and most Americans are already telling their representatives, let them marry, let them serve in the military, who cares. We need jobs, we need affordable healthcare, we need cleaner air and water. That’s your job.
The kinds of Constitutional Amendments we need but won’t get, certainly not in our lifetime, are so fundamentally radical to most people’s sensibilities, that they merit a separate post. But if you’ve read Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy, you know where I’m going with this.
It seems to me that if MoveOn and similar organization started a campaign to rewrite Article Five so that only a convention can amend the Constitution, it may be a great start.
Clearly, I’m not a Constitutional scholar. I’d love to hear from anybody who might have some well-informed thoughts on this.