The last time a constitutional convention was held was in 1787 when the original Constitution was drafted, for all amendments made to the Constitution since then have been adopted by congress. It took place in Philadelphia, and the Constitution it produced was ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Recently, a proposal to host another constitutional convention concerning a possible amendment about the budget has been brought up in Washington D.C. Article V of the Constitution, which concerns how changes to the Constitution ought to be made, states that amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by a national convention made up of at least two-thirds of the states.
The request for another constitutional convention stems from the desire of several states to curb federal power in regards to the control it yields over the states when it comes to dealing with the deficit. Some conservatives have expressed concern over the constitutional convention because they fear it will be similar to the 1787 convention where the delegates scrapped the old governing document, the Articles of Confederation, and came up with something entirely new. Liberals are more motivated to pursue a constitutional convention, for they are looking to make changes to the Constitution.
The question now becomes, is the constitutional convention a bad idea? On the one hand, unnecessary amendments are unlikely to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, the amount required by Article V for an amendment to be officially added to the Constitution once decided upon by a national convention or Congress. The government also wishes to maintain constitutional controversy for it keeps the public engaged, and decisions can often be influenced without formal amendments being passed. America now has to decide whether or not they are willing to risk having dramatic changes made to the Constitution in order to appease this issue about the budget.
Wow! That's really interesting Jens! I was wondering actually where you got this information. I also heard about something like this and I ended up being led to the these two sites:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention.html
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention/
Really, the idea for me is just so overwhelmingly huge that I highly doubt it would ever come into fruition. But even then, the amount of time it would take to get everything done and ratified by all the states would be better put somewhere else. We have a lot of other problems on our plate right now that probably would be better served by putting this idea of another constitutional convention on hold for just a bit.
What I do find fascinating about the entire process though is that, in our current constitution, there are two ways for adding amendments and only one of which has ever been used in the course of American history thus far. Normally amendments are proposed by Congress as you were saying before to be voted on by the majority. However, what has really come into play recently and what has really been stirring controversy is that many states have individually been petitioning for a constitutional convention. This is the second way that amendments are supposedly allowed to be made - by state petition. Though I still don't believe that any changes will be made in the near future, I find it fascinating that many states are now trying to exercise their right to asking the congress for a constitutional convention.
Thanks for the post! It's a great way to tie into lecture from the past few days!