Can a convention of the states change a constitutionally-illiterate population?

This always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Maybe part of our current troubles stem from a lack of sufficient Constitutional measures against runaway government. But the bigger issue is an American populace that doesn’t know what’s in the Constitution, can’t be bothered to learn, and doesn’t particularly care. The problem isn’t really the words on the parchment; the problem is the people who are making the laws and the courts that interpret them. The even larger problem is the people who largely assent to that governance, concluding it doesn’t really affect them. IRS abuses? Eh, they didn’t come after me. Bureau of Land Management? It’s far away. Restrictive gun laws? Hey, I live in a safe neighborhood and work in a building with security. Somebody else will pay those high taxes; somebody else will worry about the national debt.

Advertisement

Back in June, Mark Levin contended it was impossible for a constitutional convention to end up adopting measures that would worsen our fight for limited government: “The idea that thirteen red-state legislatures (with just one house controlled by Republicans) would embrace the left’s radical agenda, should crazy amendments be proposed at a convention of the states, is absurd.” Doesn’t that also mean thirteen blue-state legislatures, with just one house controlled by Democrats, could block any proposed amendment detrimental to Democratic interests? In that same piece, Levin writes, “the situation today is that the federal government re-writes, modifies, usurps, defies, etc. the Constitution virtually at will. As such, the Constitution as written and intended is meaningless in many respects.” If that’s the case, how can we be certain the government wouldn’t just go back to ignoring the Constitution after the convention?

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Sponsored

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement