Indiana Senate calls for U.S. con con

pnac

New member
Does anyone see the danger if the Constitution is "opened" by a con con. A couple of years this narrowly averted in Ohio, as I recall. This post will probably be closed for being a drive-by, but the threat is real, so I'll just call it a heads up for members in Indiana. For those that don't know, a constitutional convention opens the whole Constitution and anything can happen.

It looks like the stated intent is good, and I agree with that intent, but the outcome could be a disaster!

From the article:

NDIANAPOLIS | Frustrated by what they perceive as federal government overreach on taxes and regulation, the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate on Tuesday approved three measures calling for a limited U.S. constitutional convention.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress call a constitutional convention when two-thirds of state legislatures request one. Senate Joint Resolution 18, which now goes to the House, formalizes Indiana's request.

Link:http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_c3d1c52b-9147-5be8-833f-ada7688c9f56.html
 
I don't know what a "limited constitutional convention is." The Constitution doesn't say anything about limiting the scope of what a convention might consider.
 
You got it, Kyjim! If the Constitution is opened, any part of could be changed, the Indiana legislature would be only a small part of the voting process. A con con can be bad news and I think Indiana would be the 34th state needed to meet the 2/3 majority requirement.
 
A con con can be bad news and I think Indiana would be the 34th state needed to meet the 2/3 majority requirement.

So 33 states have already voted for a Constitutional Convention?

*EDIT: After some research, I have discovered that one scholar says that counting proposals over the past two centuries there are 33. Whether that will pass scrutiny is another question. Article V is pretty vague and has never been implemented, and some scholars say that all proposals must be worded exactly the same in order to open a Convention. All in all, there are more questions than answers and it would likely be left to the courts to sort out the requirements of calling an Article V Convention.
 
Last edited:
With some of the things the government is doing and trying to do these days, is it any wonder people are afraid and there is such a rash of gun buying going on nationwide ? There seems to be a mass distrust in the government.
If the Constitution is opened there is practically no limit as to the damage that could be done.
 
My first thought on this was much like KyJim's post. What is a "limited" constitutional convention? To my (somewhat cynical) ear, it sounds like "trying to have my cake and eating it, too." (by selectively editing out parts of the Constitution as it stands)
 
When did 33 states vote in favor of having a "constitutional convention"? And even if that were true, a total of 38 states would have to ratify whatever is done at the convention for it to pass.
 
Yeah, I don't recall reading any "limits" on constitutional conventions. A couple of things. First, can you imagine a group of people representing the states that could come together and agree on anything? I don't. Second, if there were a true threat of major changes those currently in power love the system as they profit from it. There is no way they would allow that to happen. They would claim it is treasonous, being held by "terrorist" and I am certain anyone that showed up would be arrested.

I read about all this a while back and discovered, to my surprise, that 33 or so states, indeed, had called for a convention at one point or another. There is no method for rescinding this call once it is made so it could be we only need two more to trigger the constitutional convention.

I am not losing any sleep over the threat of major changes as those in power do not want major changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My first thought on this was much like KyJim's post. What is a "limited" constitutional convention? To my (somewhat cynical) ear, it sounds like "trying to have my cake and eating it, too." (by selectively editing out parts of the Constitution as it stands)

Generally, from what I'm reading, "limited" means they want a Convention in order to pass a balanced budget amendment to rein in federal spending. Whether a limited Convention can be held is another question.

There is no method for rescinding this call once it is made so it could be we only need two more to trigger the constitutional convention.

That is unclear. Several states have passed legislation to rescind previous proposals for a Convention. Whether these will be recognized will likely be left up to Federal courts. Since Article V is intended to give states the power to "check" Congress, it's very possible that they would be upheld. I would be highly surprised if states were forced into abiding by a proposal made a century or more ago by long dead legislators, but stranger things have happened I suppose.
 
Last edited:
I am not doubting they want a limited convention, I am questioning under what authority they place these limits. I don't see any "limited convention" option in article 5. I am not a lawyer so maybe I am missing something.

The last time we had a convention it was proposed to amend the current system of government and actually ended up reforming the entire thing.
 
While I have very strong opinions that the constitution needed an additional clause or two, with some further clarification on others, I feel that the net gain of reopening it is way too high risk of a situation to consider adding a little needed "punctuation".
 
The Constitution doesn't say anything about limiting the scope of what a convention might consider.

Or, as Alexander Hamilton (or other loose-constructionists) would say that the Constitution doesn't say that you can't have a limited convention.

Just a thought...
 
I may dislike Hamilton more then Burr did, so it is probably best I not comment on him and his interpretations further then that ;)

Being that the conventions do not have a charter, and really even if they did, a simple vote of the members present could change those limits. That does not mean the legislatures of the states would approve changes outside of some limit, but who knows?

I think calling a convention has been used in the past to force the Senate and House to act on proposed amendments and I think that is where this process is put to good use. As leverage the states have over the federal government. AS I understand it, the reason this works is because if there is a convention called the federally elected officials lose all their power to control the situation. I think we all know how much the feds love their power and how loathed they are to give any of it up.
 
I can't say I think a con con would be more conducive to ANYTHING happening than the 100 or more amendments submitted for consideration in congress almost yearly from what I've read. Sure, we MAY get something loopy though I think that's a long shot. And repeal isn't unheard of.
 
I can think of fewer things more frightening than another Constitutional convention.

It would lead to a rewrite of the Constitution to comport with "modern" concerns and principles, and it would be full of holes, compromises, and ultimately, the Bill of Rights would suffer the most.

Consider:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

would become:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except for ____ denomination, or if the practice of _____ is prohibited by local law, or if _____ conflicts with or insults the values of _____; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except in matters of national security, or hate speech, which shall be defined in USC ______; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless within 500 feet of a polling place, or within areas x, y, and z; or if said political speech offends _____, or is defined as hate speech, or violates provision ______ of the Patriot Act.

I shudder to think what would happen to the 4th Amendment. I submit that there is nothing to do with the wording or structure of the Constitution that needs to be updated. We need to look at our contemporary misinterpretations of it, not the original document.
 
The Constitution would end up being 8000 pages long, no one would read it before they approved it, nor would they have any clue what it meant.

Bad idea.
 
This is by far the most terrifying thread I have ever read on this or any other forum.
The very thought of today's politicians reinterpreting the wisdom of our forefathers literally gives me goosebumps and turns my stomach.
 
Again, 3/4 of states would have to ratify any proposed amendment "approved" in any constitutional convention or elsewhere.
 
Back
Top