The Koch brothers and their allies think it would be a swell idea if the states got together to have a convention for the purpose of adopting amendments to the Constitution.
And they’re working at getting the state legislatures in 34 states (a two-thirds majority) to ask for one, as Article V of the Constitution provides. Right now, they’re at 28, and several more states are targets in this year’s legislative sessions. The amendments at the top of the wish-list require a federal balanced budget and propose to limit federal power in unspecified ways. And as misguided as those ideas are, it’s even worse — there’s nothing to stop a convention from entertaining other amendments once it gets underway, so we could also be looking at proposals doing away with same-sex marriage and even the most modest form of gun control, not to mention due process and equal protection. (Before you get too jittery, any amendments would have to be ratified by 38 states, a three-quarters majority.)
You’re probably thinking it can’t happen here in Massachusetts. And you’re probably right that our Legislature will not join the 28 on board so far. But there is a bill pending before the Election Laws Committee to have Massachusetts join the ranks of states asking for a convention. It was filed by Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr and it proposes a convention “limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government [and] limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”
(Senator Tarr on other occasions is not so unhinged: for example he also filed legislation to prohibit broadband providers in Massachusetts from using or selling their customers’ internet histories without permission, reinstating an Obama-era rule that President Trump did away with.)
The Election Laws Committee has not scheduled a hearing date yet. It will be interesting to hear testimony in support of the bill, especially explanations about how amendments proposed by a convention of the states could be limited in the way the Senator fondly hopes. Stay tuned, and meanwhile, if you have friends in Maine, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington or Idaho, tell them to be on the lookout. Those Legislatures are the ones the Kochs are pursuing.
I for one have never been as alarmist as some about a convention, though I’m certainly not pushing for one either. There’s actually an additional check on conventions which is states will have to elect delegates specifically for that purpose (though interestingly Article V is silent as to the composition of the convention). Therefore, even if the GOP initiates if word gets out what they are up to, I could see lots of Dems actually getting elected.
I’m a lot less sanguine. Although the odds that the Constitution will actually be amended might be small, the idea of the nation’s political attention being devoted (even further) to seeing how far the far right can push us is something that ought to be avoided.
If this happens, Massachusetts should participate, as a check on some other states.
How many states would make a quorom? If they have 34 states, is 23 enough to amend the Constitution?
No, it takes 38
We should propose repeal of the Electoral College.
I was going to suggest that this is the most important thing to push via an amendment or a convention. Next time we have a Democratic trifecta at the federal level we should push for such an amendment and get the compact states to join. I’ve flip flopped on the compact since it won’t go into effect until enough states join to make a difference. It’s a horrible way to do this, but it’s better than the status quo. We should’ve been more vigilant in the aftermath of Bush v Gore to rectify this situation. Fun fact-all 4 times this has happened it has come at the expense of the Democratic nominee.
And kudos on Martin O Malley. He is calling for non partisan gerrymandering, direct election of the President, and IRV for the Presidency which would all go a far way to reforming our government for the better.
Maybe there are other things we should be for rather than against, if for no other reason than the principle that two can play this game.
Gee, Larry Lessig’s dream is coming true. I wonder how he feels about it.
Republicans are always in favor of anti-democratic initiatives – term limits, the Electoral College, balanced budget amendments, etc. Yet when it comes time for Republicans to actually use their Congressional power to limit a runaway president, they put partisan politics first.