Why a Constitutional Convention is a Bad Idea
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) told a town hall meeting of his constituents that he wanted to call a national Constitutional Convention (ConCon) after reading Mark Levin’s new book The Liberty Amendments.
“I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions,” Coburn said according to the Tulsa World. “I have a great fear now of not having one.”
There are least four reasons why a constitutional convention is a bad idea.
First, liberals control almost everything. They lie, cheat, and steal at politics. How can you trust a Democrat who fights against voter IDs, supports killing pre-born babies, and has an unnatural support for sexually deviant behavior to follow the rules at a ConCon? Then there’s the problem of RINOs who often side with Democrats on important social issues and compromise an almost everything else. There are very few statesmen today who know enough about government to be trusted with revising the Constitution.
Trending: Why Do Last Days End-Time Novels Sell?
Second, why do we think an updated Constitution will be followed when the one Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court Justices don’t follow the one they’ve taken an oath to uphold? The present Constitution is a wax nose if it’s consulted at all. Where in the Constitution is there a granted power to force national healthcare on the American people, for a Department of Education, a National Endowment for the Arts, etc? Liberals push hard to nullify the Second Amendment or regulate it out of existence. Sen. Schumer (D-NY) wants limits on Free Speech. A New Mexico Court just nullified the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.
Third, remember what happened when delegates were sent to Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. They scrapped the Articles and wrote a new Constitution. What makes anyone think it won’t happen again? Gary North writes the following in his book Conspiracy in Philadelphia:
“The book’s thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact an illegal coup d’tat. The participants knew this. This is why they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.
“These men had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political revolution.”
It’s no wonder that Patrick Henry said of the convention, “I smelt a rat.” Are we to believe that we won’t encounter another coup d’tat?
Fourth, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. The Constitution isn’t the main problem; it’s the people we elect to office and the people who elect them. Why do we think that anything will change with a new Constitution? The voting public doesn’t care anything about the Constitution. They use the power of the State for their own benefit contrary to the Constitution.
Mark Levin is a great guy, and his new book is a good read, but if we agree to a ConCon, we’ll end up being conned by a hydra-headed political monster.