During the past couple of weeks, the subject of a Constitutional Convention has been raised twice: once during a question-and-answer session following a speech, and once via an email from a good friend. So it would seem reasonable to revisit the subject, and explain why I find that prospect–as proposed currently– horrifying.
Would it be possible to improve upon our centuries-old charter? Sure. We now see flaws that have emerged over the years, (If nothing else, there’s the Electoral College–a system used by no other country, for reasons that have become increasingly apparent…). If the idea of a reasonable review seems innocuous, however, we can be disabused of that conclusion simply by looking at the people pushing for a redo. The most prominent are ALEC (the far-Right American Legislative Exchange Council) and the Heritage Foundation. (Yes, the same Heritage Foundation that produced Project 2025.)
The goals of these and the other ideologues advocating such a convention are entirely inconsistent with the values of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Back in 2017, members of Indiana’s legislature were calling for such a convention, and I explained my opposition. As I wrote then, proponents clamoring for shortcuts to major change—revolution, a new constitution—always assume that the changes that ultimately emerge will reflect their own preferences and worldviews. History suggests that’s a naive assumption.
Indiana’s proponents wanted the state to join the calls for a Constitutional Convention. They claimed that a convention could be limited to budgetary matters–to devising “a framework for reigning in overspending, overtaxing and over-regulating by the federal government and moving toward a less centralized federal government.”
Constitutional scholars disagree with the assertion that such a convention could be limited to specified goals, but even if it could be, the specified matters would open a Pandora’s box. Think about it.
Wall Street bankers could argue that financial laws are “over-regulation.” One definition of “overspending” might be the massive subsidies enjoyed by (very profitable) U.S. oil companies; others might be Medicare or farm subsidies. Many Americans think we spend too much on the military; others target foreign aid. “Less centralization” could justify virtually any limitation of federal government authority, from FDA regulation of food and drug quality to laws against discrimination.
But the risk isn’t simply that a convention could rather easily be hijacked by people who disagree with the conveners about the nature and extent of needed changes. It isn’t even the likely influence of well-heeled special interests. The real danger is in calling together a presumably representative group of Americans and asking them to amend a document that few of them understand.
At the Center for Civic Literacy I founded at IUPUI (now IU Indy), we focused on the causes and consequences of what we’ve come to call America’s civic deficit. The data we accumulated was depressing. The last time I looked at survey results, only 36 percent of Americans could name the three branches of government, and only 21% of high school seniors could list two privileges that United States citizens have that noncitizens don’t. Etc. Even bright graduate students came into my classes with little or no knowledge of American history, episodic or intellectual. Most had never heard of the Enlightenment or John Locke. They certainly hadn’t read Adam Smith. A truly depressing percentage of undergraduates couldn’t explain what a government is, and they had no idea how ours operates. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The counter-majoritarian purpose of the Bill of Rights? Blank stares.
Given the Trump administration’s current attacks on the Constitution and media attention to those attacks, those percentages have undoubtedly improved, but civic ignorance is still obviously widespread. Do we really want to turn over the task of rewriting our Constitution to people who don’t understand the one we have?
Common Cause has looked at the unanswered questions implicit in these calls for a convention–questions that lay bare the dangers involved: How will delegates be chosen? Will there be any limits placed on the role of well-funded special interests in influencing the selection of delegates? How will votes be allocated amongst delegates? One person one vote? One vote per state? Something else? What kinds of changes would the convention consider? Will the Convention start with the U.S. Constitution or write an entirely new document?
The civically-ignorant and clinically-insane megalomaniac who occupies the Oval Office is currently being restrained only by the existing U.S. Constitution, which he has clearly neither read nor understood. The likely result of a constitutional convention would be to empower him.
Indiana has a statute that designates the State’s officer in charge of “State Convention concerning United States Constitutional Convention” I.C. § 4-23-28-4.
That person is the State’s Lt Gov.
Very well said, Professor. Thank you!
I totally agree with Sheila about not opening up the Constitution for revisions, even though I would very much like to. I’d also like our Congress to take on several actions as the people’s representatives, but the oligarchs own them and are only interested in pleasing their donors with the money.
And yes, Koch and the tech bros would significantly influence the process. Not to mention that Bezos and Musk own significantly influential media entities, and the others would flood the market with information for the oligarchy. The average Joe wouldn’t have a chance.
What makes us think we can influence a Constitutional Convention process if we can’t influence our Congressperson?
We need to make common reforms first, but I don’t see any interest from the uniparty. My biggest fear is that the Democrats are just waiting for Trump to guide voters to cast ballots for Ds in 2026, and once again, nothing happens. I hope that citizens are beginning to understand how the uniparty works and the role of our entertainment media (propaganda).
Start over? Absolutely not. Preserve the Framers’ magnificent document by distilling and incorporating the 17 amendments post Bill of Rights (or all 27), eliminate the outdated and/or imperfect, deficient language, i.e., the Electoral College, and modernize, beginning with an elimination of gerrymandering and any loopholes to the premise of everyone being equal under the law (that would include you, Mr. Trump). In fact, many of the improvements could be culled from what is happening right now by the current administration, regarding a strengthened clarity as to emoluments, a reversal and new look at Citizen’s United, etc.
The major stumbling block to any Constitutional Convention would be, as Sheila points out, the participants. How could they possibly be chosen to represent, fairly and impartially, the daunting task of rewriting and modernizing our Founders’ document. Would pure academics be the ones? Surely not politicians. And who would choose them? Ah, democracy. Messy at best.
And then we have a slimy idiot masquerading as a human, Stephen Miller, “seriously investigating” the suspension of haebeus (sic) corpus. What could possibly go wrong with that misbegotten idea?
I am torn. States have been calling constitutional conventions repeatedly(except Indiana) without the problems we fear in a federal convention. On the other hand, the United States Constitution did come out of a convention to repair the Articles of Confederation, not overthrow it! Ms. Kennedy is correct in pointing out all the practical difficulties underlying an appealing idea.
We are each defined by how we choose to invest the spacetime we are given.
The challenge we all face is measuring our return on that investment. Like all investments, what matters for each of us is what we each do, but what matters much more is what we collectively do.
What drives that process is essentially what we know is true with significant certainty and what we believe, which, like all opinions, may or may not be accurate and relevant to any problem we face.
The spacetime humans have invested over the 10,000 generations we have existed has collectively been invested with more success than failure. Still, our story can continue on Earth only if we continue investing with more successes than failures for the next 10,000 generations and beyond.
At the moment, those residing in the formerly united States of Mid North America pay too much attention to what we each do at the expense of what we all do.
That’s a sign that we must fix ourselves before we can wisely make significant changes.
Parties are extra-constitutional. Partisanship is only going to get worse in the foreseeable future with zero-sum party politics, increasingly divisive, siloing, tribalising social media, heavily monetized vested-interest access to politics, and shifting ethnic and economic demographics.
Our constitution is becoming a “dead man walking”.
1. Congress can’t compromise or reliably legislate. States are empowered to gerrymander along partisan lines with little restraint.
2. SCOTUS is heavily partisan and will remain so for the next 10-20 years as currently constituted. Any turnover will likely lead to equivalent or even more ideologically fraught appointments.
3. The executive branch is becoming an unrestrainable autocracy.
States die.
1. Some by murder when conquered.
2. Some by starvation when climate or unsustainable economics fail them.
3. Some by their failure to adapt due to fossilized institutions made rigid by oligarchic, entrenched, self-benefitting special interests ruling payrimonially.
We are well into #3.
So if not now, then when? If not at all, then what?
Brava! It’s clear that if called today, a Constitutional Convention would only enshrine a right winged agenda. Progressive programs are infinitely more popular, but frankly the progressives don’t play the same game as MAGATS do. We fight under Marquess of Queensberry rules and they fight under the Fight Club rules. Be careful what you wish for.
Calling for a Constitutional Convention means you have given up on the existing Constitution and, as Sheila points out, the Constitution is the only thing currently protecting our government from complete collapse. It seems to me that would lead directly to a bloody civil war with the most violent and ruthless people having the advantage. Who wants that? Only the most violent and ruthless people!
if anyone was to read in 2017 that balance budget was a total lie; anyone familiar with alec and heritage were already awhare of the lies. since 1978 those orgs have been spinning news and think tanking the issue to what we are on the door step of. every day theres some smoke screen of trumps blathering hiding further work to make this convention reality. the many of news journals i read and or gloss thru everyday make the case. (no social media) but as we see since january, no comment is the blackhouse world to news unless its given with spin in front of choosen few of right wing propaganda. after the years past on the daily news from trumps corp goebbels, id say America looks like a third world ready to deport anyone who speaks against the new regime. we sure have lost it..but then again this is how the monied factor always has worked and they bleed us dry to survive in a world of capitalists demanding we buy to live or die..no fema? well we already have overpriced insurance. get the picture..id like to see how the rancher/farmer will whether a major disaster.
best wishes to all Moms..
Greg:
good points. and well said. thanks..
I agree with Dr. Kennedy’s and Todd Smekens’ reasoning that a Constitutional convention is a very risky proposition.
I also agree with the first phrase of Sharon Miller’s first sentence, “Calling for a Constitutional Convention means you have given up on the existing Constitution…”
Though the U.S. Constitution has shortcomings, they can be addressed by other means, or simply by following the present Constitution, as it is plainly written.
I don’t know of a better constitution in the world.
Did any of you other commenters read Mark Small’s post?
Would any of you want Micah Beckwith having anything to do with writing a new constitution, or even revising the current one?
Personally, I can’t think of anything more frightening.
Then imagine Ron DeSantis representing Florida; Ken Paxton representing Texas; Margorie Taylor Green representing Georgia; Lauren Boebert representing Colorado; etc.
Is that sobering enough? Add Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, Tom Homan, Kristi Noem, etc. representing their home states.
Beyond frightening!!
Who would be convention delegates begs the question of representation. In 1776, the population of the Colonies was estimated at 2.5M, a lot of whom did not qualify as voters when the DoI was signed, the Articles had to be amended almost immediately, the Constitution compromised to satisfy human bondage demands from the wealthy (educated, white men only). Sounds familiar.
With 340M+ now, representation could mean a million or more delegates if fairly chosen. Parliamentary rules? How to even begin? Regional, then, semi-finals? Sounds like a sports tournament. Then who would vote to ratify? All qualified voters only? (Yeah, we know how that could be skewed.) Legislative delegates by state? (Gerrymander?) Governors? (OMG!)
We have a unique base to build on but it could and likely would be cherry-picked by the very group that would be most likely to have control of the process to their self-interest and supposed entitlement.
Ignorance is bliss only when you are unconscious to the consequences. I am afraid that the U.S. has followed the same trajectory as all of the dominant powers of the past. Darker days are ahead. With this large a group of power structures involved, it will be a slow and painful demise.
I’ve mentioned rewriting the Constitution like Switzerland did, and the Professor shows that right now, there is no way we want Maga worshippers to write it. Good gawd, that would be horrible! I moved back to the states to be part of the community and fight fascism in person. I had no idea that IQ45 would be re-elected and I still don’t believe he won. Not with musk in charge of Starlink satellites in every swing state! When Biden was President, yes, let’s rewrite but not now.
I never went to college, and I know of these things in which you speak Sheila! The educational system is broken and it’s been that way for a long time. You get people in there teaching their own personal slag on things, and when these individuals graduate, obviously they take no sort of test to consider their knowledge about history or anything. Only some rudimentary drivel.
I was surprised at how the testing doesn’t even reflect the textbooks that are supposed to be used in class. So obviously, there’s another agenda and it’s been there for a very long time.
Over the years I have acquired textbooks for the bachelor’s program, the Masters program, and the doctorate program for Illinois State University and one from northwestern. And I have to say, if individuals learned their textbooks, they’d be much better off than listening to these professors riffing on their own opinions and philosophical dogma. I would rather read for myself, and learn from the books rather than listen to somebody jaw-jacking all day. I might not be refined, but I’d rather be intellectually solid rather than a smooth talking overly privileged entitled and narcissistic airhead.
An example would be the Mayo clinic, in which my son is laying in there at death doorstep. Speaking to the clinicians and the hospitalists, I have realized that there is a great deal of ignorance in the medical community. When I have to point out specifics concerning infectious diseases and medications that exacerbate a problem rather than being beneficial to the healing process, or the curing process, I don’t hold out much hope for anything in this society. Because if it’s creeped that far into medicine, it’s in every aspect of society, ready to slide into extinction. That’s why deGrassi Tyson said that there are no advanced civilizations out there because they’ve killed themselves off. Well he’s probably really close to the truth!
I agree with you, Sheila, completely. There have been calls for such convention for years, and many states have lined up behind the idea, but it seems that it is those of a retrograde mind that have been most looking forward to it.
We lucked out in not repairing the Articles of Confederation or replacing it with something worse. I am not willing to bet that we get that lucky again. Also, the elites of that era were steeped in the ideas of the Enlightenment; today’s elites are steeped in the ideas of the cowboy/robber baron, making it on his own (a myth) and measuring success by how much wealth and power he has accumulated (with a few exceptions, that ethos still says “he”).
I’m completely with Sheila on this.