The political right makes claim on the Constitution. "After all," they argue, "those powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States."
I'll acknowledge that the Constitution does not grant power to the Feds for education, healthcare, or welfare: but so what? There are plenty of illegitimate governmental activities that the right supports: invading other countries without congressional authority, racial profiling, and suppression of voting rights - to name a few. It's awfully convenient that they embrace an expansive view of the 1st Amendment for campaign speech and religious liberty, while they ignore the 9th Amendment ("the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage other [rights] retained by the people") and 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying "any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws."
They claim to embrace "originalism" when it supports an argument to conserve privilege, but then brazenly disregard originalism to redefine the 2nd Amendment. At least when the left veers from the strict letter of the Constitution, we do it to help people or protect people - not to intimidate or dominate vulnerable communities.
The hypocrisy doesn't stop Conservatives from wrapping themselves in the flag though - and the Constitution - and the Bible - when any one of these icons can be used to rationalize a policy or act of exploitation. In this respect, the rhetoric seems absurdly transparent, because the policies advocated by Conservatives aim to weaken and corrupt the public authority so privileged citizens can mis-lead our consumers, exploit our workers, co-opt our national wealth, and hoard our resources. In other words, this supposed Constitutional fetish of conservatives is just a cover for the entitlement of established white men to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Liberals speak in Constitutional terms much less, largely because we don't need to. Our causes have an immediate moral basis and practical logic that doesn't require an intermediate for authority. It's not right for cops to shoot unarmed citizens - or a power company to spill coal ash into a river - or a company to sell me a product they know is defective - regardless of whether it's in the Constitution or not. It's appropriate that our elected officials respond (sometimes) with regulation that protects those interests, and doing so at the Federal level has two significant advantages: 1) it creates a nationally-uniform regulatory environment for business, and 2) it takes advantage of economies of scale in rule-making and enforcement. Perhaps we should do a better job of maintaining our Constitution with Amendments that keep up with our evolving needs, but it's disingenuous of conservatives to ignore that the needs exist - and forget that they built this government too. After all, we all benefit from clean water, disease control, public healthcare, and public education (among other benefits of the Federal government).
The Constitution may not expressly grant power to the Federal authority for all those things we enjoy - and take for granted - but we might have an opportunity to change that . . .
This gerrymandered Congress, representing a misinformed public, might not maintain the Constitution on our behalf, but Article V of the Constitution provides an alternate procedure for proposing new amendments: a Consitutional Convention may be called by the state legislatures of 2/3 of the states.
This process is already underway. Last spring, Michigan's legislature passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, becoming the 34th state to do so since the 1970, crossing the 2/3 threshold. Some of those states have rescinded their measures, so there are currently 32 states with a standing call for a Constitutional Convention. Congress is very aware of these developments, but proceeding cautiously:
Congress has not kept a formal record of all applications received from the states, beyond publication in the Congressional Record. However, On January 6, 2015 Congress began the process of counting applications submitted by the states with the passage of a House rule in the House of Representatives. The rule calls for publication of all applications for a convention "made in pursuance of Article V" as well as state rescissions. Notably the rule does not describe rescissions as being "in pursuance" of Article V. - Wikipedia.
Yes, the House of Representatives is getting involved because Republicans want a limited Convention to establish a
Balanced Budget Amendment. Most of the state resolutions calling for a Convention explicitly limit its scope to the Balanced Budget issue, so they are intrigued by its potential. Vermont and California, conversely, have written their resolutions for a Convention to overturn the Citizens United decision. Other states have their own campaigns against Citizens United to echo the CA and VT resolutions too (
Wolf PAC and
Move To Amend).
There is dispute among legal experts, however, over whether the Scope can be limited as these resolutions attempt to do, because Article V says a Convention "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes." If the text indicates that anything goes, then, as Antonin Scalia warned last summer, "Whoa! Who knows what would come out it?"
Obviously, there's a lot of thought and investment being put in to this process, and Republicans are ahead of the Democrats in preparing ideas and organizing for it. They also have control of more legislatures, so if it does happen, a Convention would most likely have a narrow scope to write a balanced budget amendment. Even if this were the case, a Constitutional Convention would be still good for liberals for two reasons: 1) a balanced budget amendment, which is widely supported, would be good for us if it doesn't lock in low taxation (nothing kooky would get ratified by 2/3 or the states), and 2) a successful application of this method would be a mobilizing demonstration, enabling its use it to overturn Citizen's United decision (since 72 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats oppose Citizens United.
To conclude, our political opponents aim to change the constitution to limit the government's borrowing. That could be a good thing, so we should stay open to the possibility of a Constitutional Convention, because we can use it to overturn Citizens United. Beyond that, there's lots of great ideas out there for updating the Constitution (like Six Amendments: How And Why We Should Change The Constitution by John Paul Stevens, the retired Supreme Court Justice). This process is one that we can use to reclaim our government from corporate control. Stay open to it, and support the organizations that are doing this important work! (Wolf PAC and Move To Amend)