The last three governors of two or California have wanted to help organize and promote constitutional conventions, either at the state or federal level. Both have been dangerously wrong about this.
Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger only wanted a state convention, with the aim of eliminating part of the guiding documents of California, which change as often as every two years if voters approve voting initiatives.
But the current Governor Gavin Newsom is more ambitious, seeking the first national constitutional convention since 1787, even before George Washington was elected president.
Newsom believes that this convention can limit to a problem: arms control.
Ironically, these apparently simple calls from a moderate republican and liberal Democrat placed them in the camp of the extreme right Republicans of the Organization of the Convention of the States, which has Bone looking for a national constitutional review meeting for years. Until now, the COS effort has obtained the support of more than half of the 34 states necessary to call a convention.
Like Newsom and Schwarzenegger, Cos affirms that their convention could have its narrow objectives, which include the imposition of severe expense restricts in Congress, together with the deadline limits for satros and members of Congs and others. Official. (The presidents are already limited to two terms by the amendment 22 of the existing constitutions).
And there is the problem.
Because there is never a second constitutional convention, nobody knows if the activity of such a meeting can be limited to one or two subjects, or if everyone would have a fair game. The first amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion, could disappear. The guarantees or weapons rights of the second amendment could also. Or the 14th amendment, which guarantees due process in all criminal procedures. And again and again.
In summary, a constitutional convention would be a pandora box and nobody knows which institution could supervision or limit its scope. For a single example, since the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as one of today’s main authorities, why could the judges of that court have jurisdiction on the actions of a constitutional review of Kightias?
That is why the Ultra-Polo Democratic Senator of San Francisco, Scott Wiener, wants the legislature this year to revoke its approval of a resolution that asks for a convention to deal with weapons control. Wiener, who is wrong with many things, including the remodeling of California’s house to be much more denser than before, is right about it. There is even the possibility that California’s call to a weapons control confab can be added to COS efforts for a convention that deals with different problems. No one knows.
Wiener said: “There is no way that California accidentally helps these extremists to trigger a Constitutional Convention where (they could) rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate access to reproductive health, etc.”.
Wiener’s fears are becoming more common, since states like Illinois and New Jersey, which had previously called open for a constitutional convention, have terminated their previous actions. However, any open call that is not terminated is still valid indefinitely and could be used by Cos or any other person who wants to invoke a convention, whatever their motives.
Undoubtedly, a constitutional convention, either at the state or federal level, would be a delight for the people they like to play with a brainstorm about the structure of the government. But it could also become a nightmare for those who treasure civil freedoms and protection against the tyranny of the majority when it comes to things like taxes.
The fact is that no one knows how the delegates of such convention could be elected or who would be eligible to serve. The current state and federal constitutions indicate that they should only represent different areas and states in proportion to their population. If they would be chosen or appointed by the current holders of the office, it is an open question. Of course, there is no guaranthesis or what groups would be represented and which are not.
The conclusion: it is better not to confront questions such as this, since the lack of existing rules could mean that decisions would be taken by the strongest among us, instead of the wisest. So why open this pandora box?
Send an email to Thomas Elias to tdelias@aol.com and read more of your online columns in Californiafocus.net.