A very, very good point

 

Regarding calls for a Constitutional Convention to "rectify" our current political problems, Karl Denninger observes (emphasis in original):

[A convention] will do nothing until and unless it includes the willingness of the States to back the requirements of the Constitution with whatever force is necessary for it to be obeyed, Supreme Court, Executive and Congress be damned.

But..... is there anything actually wrong with the Constitution that isn't within these lines now?

All the examples cited in this article are already violations.  This is akin to screaming that rapists will be stopped by passing a second law making rape illegal.  Why would you believe the rapist will be deterred if the first law was ignored?

If you're not willing to back up the law with whatever force is necessary for those subject to it to decide that obeying said law is a better idea than breaking then whatever you pass is of no value whatsoever.

Indeed demanding that [we] write more words on a page is nothing more or less than a naked attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the States have every right and in fact duty to enforce The Constitution (as do the people) right here and now, and yet those who have no interest in the actual Constitutional boundaries in fact have a very-clear pecuniary and political interest in promoting both false hope and lies.

Don't fall for it; demand that those talking about a ConCon first enforce the existing Constitution to the letter and then, and only then, will you consider permitting them to change that which, when executed as-written, proves to be deficient in some form or fashion.

There's more at the link.

I couldn't agree more.  A Constitutional Convention under our present circumstances would simply give hotheads on both sides of the political aisle an excuse to bloviate, try to insert "poison pills" in the revised Constitution to frustrate the other side, and generally build on our present disorders to make them worse for everybody.

Let's instead enforce the existing provisions of the Constitution (particularly those that restrict the powers of the Federal government), get back to what our government should be, and only then worry about changing things further.  It's a far simpler, easier, cheaper, and less complicated solution . . . but each side has so many axes to grind by now that it's sure to be rejected.  Neither side wants to give up the power it's grabbed for itself, constitutionally or otherwise.

Peter

Share :