Our Opinion: A potentially dangerous convention

Monday, February 21, 2011

A proposal by a state lawmaker to call a constitutional convention allowing states to repeal federal laws has drawn mixed reactions – including from us.

State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, has advanced a resolution urging Congress to call a constitutional convention. The aim of the convention would be to draft a constitutional amendment permitting states to repeal federal laws.

We share Barnes’ concern that our federal government increasingly has deviated from its own concept of federalism.

Federalism is defined in the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The practical effect of the amendment is it empowers states to act essentially as policy-setting laboratories. Policies that prove effective and efficient then can be copied by other states or even the federal government – but only if authorized by their respective constitutions.

Barnes’ proposal received a cool reception not only among Democrats, but also among conservative Republicans, who fear wide-ranging ramifications from a constitutional convention.

Eagle Forum, founded by conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, opposes all efforts to call a constitutional convention, citing concerns such a gathering “could rewrite our U.S. Constitution.”

Barnes contends the wording of his resolution would limit the purpose of a constitutional convention, but others remain unconvinced. Schlafly characterizes a constitutional convention as “a plunge into the unknown.”

The uncertainly caused lawmakers to postpone any vote on Barnes’ resolution while they study potential ramifications.

We concur with the delay.

We have serious reservations about a constitutional convention and would need to be assured — beyond any doubt — the convention would not prompt wholesale revisions of our Constitution.

Rather than seeking a constitutional convention, we would prefer states resolve to urge their representatives in Congress to stop unauthorized interference with state governments and adhere to the concept of federalism.

More like this story

Graceful 2 years, 3 months ago

We should do this and we should have done it 50 years ago.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

While we are at it we might as well break apart the country and let the states go about their merry ways.There is a checks and balance system that has been in place since this country was founded. Challange the law as unconstitutional and let the Supreme Court do as it was attended.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually the Supreme Court is very conservative. Take a look at their rulings. No one has taken away anyone's right to live how they morally see fit. That is a personal issue that should not be manadated by either the State or the Federal Government. Before advocating the break up of the United States, you may want to look at all the ramificatons. Missouri would end up a third world nation.

JCLifer 2 years, 3 months ago

Missouri is already a 3rd world nation. We are ranked #50 in many things currently.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

I will agree with you there but we are still a state & part of the United States of America. Imagine how worse it would be if we were a little landlocked country.

JCLifer 2 years, 3 months ago

The question is: do the feds help us more than we help them?

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

I would have to say on the world stage, natural resources, and in matters of defense/security - most definately.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

If the United States is disolved and the States are ruling, then each State would be considered a country. Since Missouri is bordered on all sides by land, it would be a landlocked country.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Those would be alliances not countries. Each state would rule itself. There may be alliances but the states would effectively become like the Greek city states. Even when our country was founded, the states debated whether to be individual country states or united as one. No matter how you look at it, even with alliances, Missouri would be a poor landlocked country should the union disolve. That is if it's not swallowed up/annexed by a larger power/state. Then it would loose it's identity all together.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Each individual State not plural. If the federal government were dissolve as you are adamant about, you basically have two choices: a new federal government or city/state with alliances.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Get off of the Roe Vs. Wade tirade. That's ONE ruling and the ruling was passed within the law. Look at the Court and it's rulings as a whole. ONE ruling does not make the court.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

You need to read the rulings then you will understand. While you may not agree with the rulings because they go against what you believe, they are based on the law. The Supreme Court hasn't usurped anything. Its rights were given in the Constitution. Your issue of Roe v Wade and Roper v Simmons is because it's contrary to what you believe personally. Yet the Court ruling was based on the law. Lawrence v Texas, I may not agree entirely but again, their ruling was based on the law. Engle V. Vitale was unconstitutional due to the seperation of Church and State. If you want a standardized prayer, that's fine but don't force anyone else to have to abide by it. Once again, you've chosen to dismiss the rulings of the Court that favor your views because that would not justify your arguement that the Court should be abolished.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes, the Bill of Rights apply to the states and yes, there is a seperation of Church and State. I challenge YOU to stop screaming and complaining just because something doesn't fit into your perfect little world and actually listen. Oh, I forgot, unless we believe the way you do exactly, we are demons. As for mis"interpreting" something, I could say the same thing about the Bible and the Qu'ran. If you want to live under a church state, then you would need to move to the papal state. This is a democracy. We get things right, we get them wrong. It's the will of the people as a whole, not the group who screams the loudest. I don't agree with every law but I don't pick and choose to frame my arguement and refuse to listen to opposing views.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually Roe v Wade was the will of the people. The majority. What you've done is picked four cases that you don't agree with to try to prove your point. Until you take the entire rulings of the Court into account, it's not a worthy arguement. My justification is not "it's the law". If you would read what I said, I stated several times, the rulings the Court made were based on the law. The law that the people of the United States live by and have made into law accordingly. If you don't like it, that's your option. Just because you don't like the rulings doesn't mean that they are wrong or that the Court has usurped anyone's power. I'm not certain why you've referenced he 14th amendment which grants citizenship to everyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction and protects civil and political rights. Those Rights (that Maxist word again) stated in the US Constitution. Also, the US Constitution does apply to ALL states. This includes the Bill of Rights. They can't pick and choose which to abide by. I have read the Constitution. I do know American history. I repeat, you are picking and choosing so your arguement bears out. You aren't taking things as a whole. You are refusing to listen to any arguement that doesn't fit into your perfect little world. In your version, we would be under your church led dictatorship blindly following and only believing one way. While I certainy do not agree with you, I do defend your right to do so. Have you noticed that the pesky little Marxist word keeps popping up? Rights! The People's Rights, Worker's Rights, Civil and Political Rights, Bill of Rights!

onlineidentity 2 years, 3 months ago

If a convention is called then it should be about wholesale change. It should not be limited to only one idea or proposal but should be a place where a great many pressing issues are dealt with. I agree with the article that the ramifications of this should be looked at long and hard before any action is taken, but if it does not deal with all the current constitutional issues then let SCOTUS do its job.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

They ruled according to law as they should. You may not agree with it because those case rulings don't agree with your views but there are rulings that do. They rule by law and have done their job as part of the checks and balance system. No one is going to agree with every ruling.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

You need to actually READ the Constitution, not pick and choose.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 3 months ago

Just because you personally don't agree with the rulings doesn't mean that they are not based on law. If you would read the rulings and the Constitution without a biased view then you would see. I could prove it to you, in fact several of us here have tried. You refuse to stop shouting at us and actually hear.

online_editor 2 years, 2 months ago

A perspective on the forum to consider.. If you've expressed your viewpoint, clarified, elaborated, debated and restated through multiple posts, it's highly likely that you've successfully communicated to the vast majority of readers what your position is. And that's the main thing we're here to accomplish. Rather than going round and round with one other person ad infinitum, there comes a point when it's time to agree to disagree and move on. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

onlineidentity 2 years, 3 months ago

The problem with all of those is that they perfectly demonstrate the Court doing its job. It is making sure that the legislative branch does in fact abide by the constitution. But then again most of your posts urge on the dissolution of the US so I guess there is no reason to pay any attention to the Constitution. The solution to all of the woes of the nation would be to elect Glen Beck and Sarah Palin to the office of Supreme High Chancellor of the nation and bask in the perfection which would be achieved by putting all the liberals against a wall.

JCLifer 2 years, 3 months ago

How about severely limiting the power and influence of the feds? Let the states function more as independent countries with the feds just providing armed forces protection, keeping commerce flowing, etc. Let states have the power and control to do as their voters see fit.

MRH 2 years, 3 months ago

Article V is straight forward, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments." The Convection is not called to propose one amendment and is not limited to just one. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to proceed with caution. Our congress men and senators are tasked with initiating this process and their feet should be held to the fire if needed. A Convention is a last resort.

JCLifer 2 years, 3 months ago

A resort we are nearly at...

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune