Advocates of an Article V constitutional convention crow about every state legislative body that passes a resolution calling for such a convention. Chief among these cheerleaders is “conservative” talk-show host/entertainer Mark Levin.
During his daily radio show, Levin regularly reports on the success of states in signing on to the Article V roster. Curiously, however, there is one recent resolution that Levin has failed to flog.
On May 2, the state legislature of Vermont approved a measure making application “for Congress To Call A Convention For Proposing Amendments To The U.s. [sic] Constitution.”
Even a quick peek at the Vermont resolution reveals why Levin has uncharacteristically kept mum about it.
Vermont’s call for a convention purports to limit that meeting to being conducted “for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process, including, inter alia, by overturning the Citizens United decision.”
Surely even those self-professed “conservatives” in the Article V camp can see the folly of such language. In fact, it is likely that if they were at liberty to give their opinion without offending those bankrolling this movement, many of them would push hard to shove resolutions such as this one off of the Article V bandwagon.
In fact, some of those monied shot-callers may have been behind the alterations to the text that appear in the final version of the Vermont resolution.
As originally drafted, the proposal read as follows:
That the General Assembly, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, hereby petitions the U.S. Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and be it further
Resolved: That not intending to condition this petition, Vermont requests that its specific concerns notwithstanding, the agenda of the convention be limited to those matters enumerated by at least 10 of the states calling for the convention.
Noticeably different, but not different enough to remove the fatal flaws.
There are so many potential loopholes in the Vermont measure’s language, each one large enough to allow radical “repairs” to our Constitution to squeeze through. (I have written elsewhere on the enormous and critical distinction between repairing the Constitution and restoring it.)
The John Birch Society has for decades been on the front line of the battle to prevent the Constitution from being opened up to the tinkering of con-con delegates that could be at best, inept, and at worst, purposefully aiming to alter our form of government and replace the current Constitution with something more “progressive” or “democratic.”
On its website devoted to providing educational resources regarding the movement to call a constitutional convention, The John Birch Society explains its position:
Many view a con-con as a quick way to pass amendments they think will stop the big-government juggernaut. Why would politicians suddenly start following an amended Constitution after ignoring and violating the Constitution for so long? The remedy so desperately needed to return our country to good government is to enforce the Constitution, not amend it.
Click here to read the whole article.
Photo of Mark Levin: AP Images