Legal News

Is a Constitutional Convention the Antidote to Congress?

By Ashby Jones

Americans, it seems, don’t have a lot of love for the body of federal lawmakers we like to call Congress. According to a recent Washington Post poll, only 24 percent of the respondents said they approved of the job Congress was doing. Republicans, Democrats, Independents — it just doesn’t matter. People don’t like Congress.

So what to do? The electorate can vote everyone out — as seems the impulse these days — but you’re still left with, well, Congress. Filibusters, back-room deals, hyper-partisanship, the whole deal.

One potential solution, some think, lies in Article V of the Constitution, which permits states to call a convention for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. Any proposed amendment then would have to be ratified by both houses of 38 state legislatures (three-fourths of the states). In order to launch a constitutional convention, requests by 34 states are required (two-thirds of the states).

Writing for the WSJ’s opinion page on Thursday, Virginia state legislator James LeMunyon thinks a constitutional convention is the way to go. He cites evidence that interest in such a path is “growing at the state level.” LeMunyon writes:

A petition for such a convention passed the Florida Senate last month, to propose amendments requiring a balanced budget and to restrain the growth of the national government. If approved by the House, Florida would be the 20th state with an active call to do so. In the Virginia House of Delegates, I introduced a resolution (H.J. 183) calling for a constitutional convention to restrain the national government as well.

Over at the Washington Post, Ezra Klein, well, pretty much rips the idea. For starters, Klein thinks that putting more hands in the states would only serve to “further bias[] outcomes toward state preferences.” For example: Klein seems to advocate getting rid of the Senate, calling it an “a disproportionate and gridlock-inducing body.” But that outcome could never happen under a convention, Klein argues, because chucking the Senate would likely weaken states’ power.

Klein also strikes a “be careful what you wish for” note, saying that most constitutional amendments that get proposed are ill considered and would lead to counterproductive results. Writes Klein:

LeMunyon proposes a balanced budget amendment, which would have a catastrophic economic impact, especially in recessions. Imagine if TARP hadn’t passed, even more major banks had failed, and the federal government was not able to do any fiscal stimulus to clean up the mess, and you start to get just how irresponsible a balanced budget amendment would be. But it sure was popular the last time it was seriously debated, and the support of 38 state legislatures, most of whom are operating under balanced budget amendments of their own, seems achievable.

LBers, any thoughts? Should we use the constitutional convention strategy to circumvent Congress’ ineffectiveness?

While we’re at it, should we get rid of the Senate?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on April 01, 2010 (boomark / email).