The Limbaughs are Wrong About a Constitutional Convention

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A month ago David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh's brother, wrote a piece titled: A Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea. I have been meaning to rebut the article because it is not based on any facts, leaves Federalist 85 completely out of the argument, and simply repeats the fears pushed on the Internet by those liberals who wish to keep all of the power in the hands of the federal government.

I have neglected to write that rebuttal.

Then, yesterday, Rush Limbaugh spouted the same ignorance on his radio program.

Don't get me wrong, I like Rush Limbaugh, and I have only disagreed with him a handful of times (only one of which he turned out to be right - does that make me right 99.7% of the time?) But, as much as I hate to say it, Rush, and his brother David, are wrong on this one.

First of all, they call the convention by the wrong name. There has only been one Constitutional Convention, and that is all there should be - and that one was held in 1787. The proper name for what people like the Limbaughs call a Con-Con is an Article V. Convention.

It amazes me that these people claim that something the founders gave us in the Constitution is a bad thing. An Article V. Convention is a tool, and in Federalist 85 it was explained as being a safeguard so that "State legislatures [may] erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." The Article V. Convention exists so that if the federal government gets too out of control, the people through their States have a way to reel in the federal government.

Article V establishes amendments. Amendments are the only way to change the Constitution, and they must be ratified by 3/4 of the States in order to go into effect. Originally, only the States were going to be able to propose amendments. On the second to the last day of the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers added as an afterthought to allow the Congress to propose amendments as well. The amendment process is the process through which the Constitution may be altered.

Amendments, according to Article V, may be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. Amendments must then be ratified by approval of three-fourths of the states either through their legislatures, or through ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.

As stated earlier, amendments may also be proposed by a national convention. Such a convention is called an "Article V. Convention." Originally, mind you, this way (of which the Limbaughs call dangerous) was to be the only way to amend the Constitution. Allowing the federal government to propose amendments was an afterthought added near the end of the convention of 1787.

The Limbaughs are foolishly warning against such a convention. The convention is not some way to change the Constitution willy-nilly. It requires a minimum of two-thirds of the states to apply before it can be called. The fear by people like the Limbaughs is that if such a convention was to convene, the attendees would re-write the Constitution. However, the constitution does not allow for that. Only amendments may be proposed during an Article V Convention. And the delegates are not federal cronies, or professional politicians. The delegates will also be you, and me, and other concerned citizens. Also, regardless of how many delegate are present, each State will only get one vote on whether or not the amendment should be proposed, and offered to the State Legislatures for ratification. The beauty is, the federal government is cut out of the process, and cannot stop any amendments to be passed that could further limit the authorities of the federal government, or, say, require that all bills meet constitutional muster before going to a vote in Congress.

The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. All 50 states have called for it, many of those calls beginning longer than over a 100 years ago (and even over 200 years ago). The convention has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (the only federal duty in an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, that would limit the powers of the federal government. Centralized systems do not like it when the individual mind gets involved.

The Constitution says that upon application the Congress "shall" call a convention. Shall is definitive, so by refusing to call the convention for the purpose of the States proposing amendments, the Congress is acting unconstitutionally.

Amendments may change the Constitution as necessary, as long as no amendment, without the consent of the State, deprives a State of equal suffrage in the Senate. The 17th Amendment, unfortunately, eliminated State representation in the Senate, handing the U.S. Senate over to the popular vote, thus eliminating the States' voice from the federal government. This changed the original dynamics of our governmental system, and took away some of the most important checks on the federal government we had.

Unfortunately, Rush and David Limbaugh don't get it. They have fallen for the bleating of the sheep. Sirs, read paragraph 13 of Federalist 85, study Madison's Notes on the federal constitution, and realize that not only is an Article V. Convention a good thing, it is necessary if we are to gain back the reins of this out of control federal government.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Federalist Papers: No. 85 by Alexander Hamilton - Avalon Project

Madison's Notes on the Federal Convention of 1787 - Avalon Project

A Constitutional Convention is a Dangerous Idea by David Limbaugh - Jewish World Review

The Constitution Isn't Our Problem - Rush Limbaugh