Article V Constitutional Convention - Cause For Worry - Or A Big Yawn?

The latest concern - among a certain clique of cognoscenti in the media - is the Right succeeding in calling for (and getting)  a  "Convention of the states".

 The purpose?  To change the Constitution by adding new amendments.  The prime objective would most likely be to pass at least two  amendments near and dear to the Right's heart: 1) to permanently limit federal spending, i.e. via a "balanced budget" amendment, and 2) an extension of the 2nd amendment, to protect all assault weapon owners from gun control lefties.. Incredibly a minority on the left see the real threat: the poseur and traitor called Trump, i.e. Donnie Dotard.

As if Trump's blatant efforts to get foreign assistance to snatch another election  isn't enough we now face the prospect of an "Article V Constitutional Convention."  Technically, if such a convention emerged all hands ought to be on deck to remove Trump. In fact, the Right has a different agenda.

Clearly, even the most superficial observer can see the  existing structure of  the federal government is unable or unwilling to rescue the country from the abyss into which Trump's power-grabs have thrust us.  Look at how the power mad autocrat in the WH has smashed past every norm, every guardrail and flouted and dishonored his constitutional oath. He's done it not only to enrich himself  but to create a criminal syndicate accountable to no one but himself - capturing the DOJ,  the Pentagon, and now even the intel community (as the recent whistleblower revelation shows)

On Saturday, the walking, talking orange maggot had the audacity to embrace the parallels to the 2016 dumpster fire of an election campaign, and then predicted he'd win again in 2020.  If he does you can kiss this country's future goodbye because it will cease to be a representative democracy and become another proto-fascist, authoritarian state.  Especially as the Dems - despite being handed power in November, 2018 -   seem ill- prepared or equipped to counter the takeover.  Pelosi is convinced the 2020 election will get rid of the refuse, but she's dreaming. The Founders themselves never believed that B.S. especially if a confirmed demagogue and autocrat had seized power, or in Trump's case - stolen it via collusion/ conspiracy with a hostile foreign power.  James Madison himself, 11 years after the signing of the Declaration, feared the influence of a corrupt president, and an unwillingness of the House to check him. In such a case he intimated it "would be the end of the Republic".   We are very close to that threshold now.

 Meanwhile, House Dems  have  been brought to their knees with gestures of empty futility and impotence, e.g. hollow show hearings, endless court battles.  All this no thanks to a seemingly senile Nancy Pelosi unwilling to use the only tool left in the Constitutional toolbox: impeachment.  She argues that she has "no choice" as her more conservative caucus members blanch at the notion of impeachment as it will cost them their jobs. Do you think former D-House leader Tip O'Neill would have accepted or countenanced that blather with the nation and party facing a political emergency? Hell no! He'd have banged heads together to have them fall in line to do the right thing, which is to lay down a marker that this lawless behavior will not be normalized - or set a damning precedent.

The battle against the Trump syndicate, of course, isn't the  only issue causing crisis level angst in the nation. So also are the expanding deficit - now approaching $2 trillion,  immigration and the need for immigration reform, as well as pushes for more gun control in the wake of so many mass shootings - and dozens that have been nipped in the bud you never heard about.  Because co-workers,  relatives or friends reported the miscreant.

All of which has led to the yen to seek drastic solutions.  Given gridlock in D.C. - thanks to "Moscow Mitch" sitting on dozens of bills, it is curious that the Right and its minions are pushing for the most extreme remedies to gain some form of movement.

According to the Right's   nabobs and political blowhards,  like TX governor Greg Abbott - who has a pathological fear of the federal gov't taking away his guns-  the only thing left is to put the decisions to the  states, i.e. employing Article V of the Constitution.  Thereby,   these political iconoclasts imagine they can call an "Article V" Convention of States to propose to the country amendments to reverse our decline.   Again, for the most part this "decline" is imagined as being derived from the excesses of the "socialist left" - whether the Green New Deal proposals, Medicare for all, or stopping border incarcerations.  In other words, reverse the decline of the white nativist, nationalist clique which has dominated for over 250 years.

Fortunately, while a growing number of nativists and 2nd amendment fetishists believe that the federal government has gone rogue, there is disagreement about the utility (and wisdom)  of calling a Convention of States to  rein it back in.  As  there damned well should be.   For one thing, any Convention of States  wastes precious time and resources in pursuit of an unrealizable goal.  Let me rephrase that: About as realizable as getting Mitch McConnell to finally bring to the floor all the dozens of bills  (passed by the House) now sitting and rotting in the Senate

 Furthermore, there is a historical basis  to this rational skepticism. Despite being included as an element of the original Constitution, a Convention of States has never occurred in American history, and for good reason: It takes 2/3 of the states (34) to call a Convention to begin with, and it takes 3/4 of the states (38) to ratify any amendment. These are tall orders, and for proof, just look at how long it's taken to get an equal rights amendment (ERA) passed.  Let's also recall that the Constitution  itself was passed by supermajorities, so little wonder it requires supermajorities to ratify amendments.  After all, you are de facto altering this noble document - perhaps in perpetuity.

A more remote objection is that a Convention of States - say if even partially successful i.e. in making the first round 'cut' -  could become a “runaway convention.” In that case, we can imagine rogue delegates,  say  2nd amendment freaks,  hijacking the agenda to ram home their demands..  This is a totally plausible outcome especially after state applications hit the target of 34.  Then  the rogues only need the.complicity of the U.S. Congress (stacked with Repukes).


According to one take in a recent article on FORBES:

"This is a reasonable fear, but here’s why there is no cause for worry: Consider where the logic leads from the correct “long-shot” description of the Convention of States. If 34 state legislatures actually were to formally agree on a Convention call, it would be the first time in history. When we reflect on the magnitude of such an accomplishment—all the coalitions formed in each state and across the country, the massive increase in public awareness of the crisis that would result, and the effect of all this on public opinion and voting behavior—we see that the well-intentioned concerns of those fearing a runaway convention miss the mark. They miss the effect on the U.S. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the U.S. Supreme Court of such an unprecedented popular movement. Faced with an historic uprising by We The People, unscrupulous delegates and/or Congress would be unable to pull strings from behind closed doors without exciting a national uproar."

But I am not so confident.   Mainly because "we the People" are now literally shell shocked by the tidal wave of Trump's antics, chaos, plots and lawlessness and the unwillingness of  the existing  so -called "equal branch" of  constitutional government to stop him.  National uproar?  I can't see it.  What we have now is an enervated and  psychologically besieged population without the energy or inclination to initiate an uproar far less sustain it.  As blogger William Rivers Pitt put it in a recent blog on Trump rolling back emissions standards:

"For many millions of people, the ceaseless vicissitudes of the Donald Trump experience, the serial humiliations, degradations and compounded outrages, leave us baffled in our efforts to simply get through the day. Trump is our collective Cousin Francis, and we are all sinking slowly."

So whereas one ought to expect to see mass national protests on a similar  scale to those in Hong Kong, it just won't happen unless something radically changes. Or the mass of citizens are able to tend to the minutiae of their daily lives as well as pay attention to the atrocities on the national scene. SO far, it isn't evident enough can.

Hence, I'm more  encouraged by the theoretical technical barriers to any rogue push for amendments.  First, any ratification of a feared rogue amendment would take 38 states. That's a high threshold.  It means that merely 13 states can veto any amendment. Does anyone believe that there are not 13 states in the Union that would block any amendments but those called for by the 34 states to rein in the federal government? If we cannot count on there being constitutional fidelity in even this small number of states, we would be forced to concede that America’s experiment in self-government has already failed To ensure that it does not fail in his own narrow perspective,  Governor Abbott has issued his call for a Convention of the states. He fears the people less than he does the federal government. He worries less over a runaway convention than over our runaway federal government.  But that means he'd more likely enable rogue amendments to come to life  - to the detriment of every citizen.

The most strident critics also neglect the historical evidence that demonstrates calling a Convention of States can “fail” and still succeed. There have been instances in our past where states began movements calling for constitutional amendments, then the U.S. Congress, jealous of its prerogatives, has “taken over” by proposing the amendments itself. (Under the Constitution, either 2/3 of the states or 2/3 of both houses of Congress can call for amendments.)

If such congressional action again preempts the current call for a Convention of States, the states can lose and still win, for the requested amendments may see the light of constitutional day.

My take, for what it's worth, is that it's best to let Constitutional  Article V 'sleeping dogs'  lie and not go down that path at all.  Yes, things are glitchy now with partisan gridlock and a loose cannon fool occupying the White House.  But picking up a loaded constitutional 'gun' and spinning the chamber in Article V roulette is not the optimal way to resolve things.

See Also:

Donald Trump | Joe Biden

The Trump "Whistleblower" Situation Is Very Dangerous for Democracy (and for the Democrats)

How Can Women Protect Themselves From Being "Slut-Shamed"?

Even Sandra Fluke, a literal heroine for the rights of American women in 2012, was slut-shamed for vigorously defending accessibility to contraception via the Affordable Care Act.

The recent case of Kentucky Wildcats' fan (and actress)  Ashley Judd tweeting her opinion about an opponent  team's cheating almost instantly brought the wrath of the alpha male trolls onto her head. In response, in  tweet after tweet these scurrilous vermin hurled sexually violent epithets as well as  physical threats at her. Similar attacks on HBO Girls' star Lena Dunham forced her to take one of the most extreme steps imaginable in the age of social media frenzy: cut off her Twitter feed.

This was indeed, drastic, but for high profile women in the media it may be the only way to secure their character from attacks by internet trolls, who appear to have had a population explosion in recent years. We have also learned from various studies that women online, and especially using social media (Facebook, Twitter) are nearly four times more likely to be attacked than males. The reasons for this are still being debated and examined but one of them is surely based in not yet extending equal rights to women via the Equal Rights Amendment.  Another small part may be, as my wife put it - that women in general are the more genteel sex, and disdain conflict - whereas many males relish it - especially verbal combat. Hence, trolls more often go after the less "combative" types.

Whatever the reason, slut -shaming attacks and general vile misbehavior towards women isn't confined merely to those like Lena Dunham who have high profile TV shows - which also feature a lot of sexy scenes.  For example, we have seen the case of women's reproductive rights defender and spokesperson Sandra Fluke -who was mercilessly attacked by the likes of Rush Limbaugh back in 2012.

Ms. Fluke delivered courageous testimony on the need for contraceptive inclusion in the ACA and her words were promptly twisted by Limbaugh (and other Reich renegades, mainly at FOX) to convey the asinine notion she was pleading for sexual libertinism. Much the same happens to other women day to day who blog about similar issues, for example, or express their thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. (Tracy Clark-Flory comes to mind, and she also writes for salon.com)

Then there is the execrable, actual debasement and exploitation of young women, especially on our college campuses. We already have seen the horrendous rape statistics, and they apply across the board  - to the Ivies, as well as state universities.  But the maltreatment of women extends to college fraternities as well.

In the most recent case, the degenerates based at Penn State's Kappa Delta Rho fraternity created a special secret FB page on which they posted images of women passed out and nude at their frat house, and made it accessible to current and former members. No consent from the women was given, so it is clear that laws definitely were broken and restitution of some form needs to be made. Meanwhile, the national office has suspended the Penn State chapter for a year. We still don't know what the university itself will do but they ought to at least consider what happened to Sigma Alpha Epsilon at OU when that racist rant was shown.

Incredibly, assorted Neanderthals - excuse me - apes, have actually tried to justify or at least diminish the behavior. In the OU case, we were expected to believe the little miscreants simply went slightly ape shit after consuming "too much" alcohol. So, I guess their inner apes got control of their brains. In this case the excuse is made based on excess alcohol, or the inner ape being released under its influence. Under no circumstances were the little dears actual racists. God forbid! In their non-intoxicated state these punks were really 'salt of the earth', prejudice-free citizens.

Meanwhile, a Penn State Kappa Delta Rho  defender actually wrote in the WaPo:

"The fire of indignant, misplaced self-righteousness that looks to ruin people's lives and unjustly ruin reputations is the abuse and violation that should be at the center of discussion, not the humorous, albeit possibly misguided antics of a bunch of college kids."

WTF?! Trying to turn the transgression back on those who exposed it? So let me get this straight, these bozos posted nude images of passed out females without their consent - for the consumption and gratification of their mates - and it is the women's fault for trying to get justice?  Are you kidding me?

These characters really believe it is the women and their defenders trying to "ruin people's lives and reputations" when it is the frat turkeys themselves who have done it by their actions. Of course it is their doing and that is the meaning of personal responsibility. It is exactly parallel to what happens now when a person poses themselves in compromising ways on Facebook, then wonders why s/he was rejected for a job, position,  because an employer found her FB content.

The kid who wrote the WaPo response can bellyache all he wants but in the end what these guys did was not "misguided antics". Misguided antics refers to when we got drunk - like at Loyola, New Orleans- and pissed in a roommate's wastebasket, or filled his pillow case with shaving cream before he hit the hay.  But posting non-consensual nude photos of females in your frat house is NOT ."antics" - misguided or other. This shows how brains have been warped to believe anything goes now.

What can women do to protect themselves? The only choices - until  actual legal consequences can be enacted against these  renegades (e.g. cutting off internet accounts, job firings, banning fraternities) appear to be few:

-  Get off the Twitter feed if you tend to express controversial opinions. Take up blogging instead - which offers a format more appropriate to explaining the reasons behind your opinions.  This is a given when you're not limited to 140 characters. Blogs also afford more filters while Tweets are simply to easy for nasty retorts. This blog is moderated, for example, so I can nip any untoward comments in the bud, at my discretion - which a Twitter feed wouldn't allow.

- In the real world of 3D space, don't put yourself in environments known to be traps - such as frat houses - where alcohol flows and people will lose self-control. 

Yes, college should be a fun place, but frat houses are not the venue to choose. At any university  there are numerous clubs and activities where one is bound to find an outlet for social expression as well as fellowship. These venues are also alcohol -free so there is less chance of trouble.

Theoretically, women should feel free to be able to express their opinions, selves  in any venue they desire, whether for social media or in the real world. They should also be able to go wherever they desire and even consume alcohol if they so choose.  The problem is the male-dominated world we inhabit is not conducive to every opinion delivered in any venue or to every action undertaken without forethought of possible consequences. This doesn't mean women should be fearful about their self-expression or choices but only recognize there are limits to that freedom given the social environment we currently inhabit.

When and if our lawmakers can bestir themselves to act on behalf of women, including passing laws in their interest, then women will surely have more latitude to explore and engage the world - including virtual - without fear....including of "slut-shaming".