In his announcement of Wolf-Pac.com and the effort to amend the Constitution to strip corporations of their human rights, Cenk Uygur said that one objective was to have the states call for a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention is a different kind of body from legislative bodies, and one is not required if the goal is to amend the Constitution. A constitutional convention is very powerful. It can completely re-structure our society.
With a constitutional convention, the entire constitution can be re-written. That is the purpose of constitutional conventions. The members of the convention are not bound by any restrictions that we might wish to place on them. That means that the entire structure of our government can change. That means that the Bill of Rights could disappear. In fact, since our Constitution defines what the United States of America is, and since that constitution would no longer exist, our country would no longer exist. It would be replaced by an entirely new country.
A constitutional convention makes the future completely unpredictable.
In his comments, Cenk cited the fabulous product of the work of our founding fathers. He used the fact that what they did turned out to be pretty good as an assurance that what we would come up with now would also be equally good. But that assurance is completely unjustified, and to understand that all that needs to be examined is our current political climate.
Where are today's Thomas Jeffersons and Benjamin Franklins? Who would sit on today's Committee of Detail? John Boehner and Harry Reid? Make no mistake: those who are politically powerful today would determine what would be in our next constitution, yet they are the very people whom we oppose. And we must not forget that many state legislatures, who also would have a significant say in who sits at a convention, are controlled at least in some part by ALEC.
A constitutional convention would make the future entirely unpredictable except in one respect: We would (or should) know already that the result could very likely be a disaster..
Yes, we need a change in the Constitution to strip corporations of their human rights, their political rights, and their immortality. We can do that with an amendment and without writing a new constitution. Do we really want to take the risk of a completely unpredictable future when an amendment would solve the immediate problem? How much do you trust our under-educated population when the media is so dominated by the right-wing?
Personally, I think that a constitutional convention is a very dangerous undertaking.
Disclaimer: I've volunteered to help with Wolf PAC's efforts to strip corporations of their political liberties, and I've even given them money. I think that is essential to maintaining our freedom. I also hope that I'll be able to talk with others in the organization about my concerns.
-- David Dickinson