Constitutional Convention??

See http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4327/Brannon-Howse/By-Phyllis-Schlafly and http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4326/Brannon-Howse/By-Tom-DeWeese. What do you think? Is this as big an issue as they're making it out to be? Is there something they're missing?

tuubaaku wrote:See http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4327/Brannon-Howse/By-Phyllis-Schlafly and http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4326/Brannon-Howse/By-Tom-DeWeese. What do you think? Is this as big an issue as they're making it out to be? Is there something they're missing?

Phyllis Schlafly has been around for a long time and is very respectable. This is the first I have ever heard of this issue. Of course if states call a Constitutional Convention (Con Con), they are deriving the authority to do so by the Constitution and would therefore be subject to that document. The fear seems to be that the Con Con will completely revamp/replace our constitution (which was done in the first Con Con). That would indeed be a travesty given the current mainstream political thought even among evangelical Christians. During the 18th century political thought was thoroughly biblical . . . it is now thoroughly humanistic. If Schlafly is giving this warning, I think it something to be concerned about.

One point I would take disagreement on is the statement, "the U.S. Constitution — our most precious document and the fountainhead of our unparalleled American freedom, independence, and prosperity." Christ is the fountainhead of freedom, independence and prosperity. This does not however speak to the validity of her concerns.

What do others think?

She says that states withdrawing their requests is basically irrelevant, because the Constitution doesn't mention that scenario. Do you think she's right? Obviously it's a bit less urgent if states can withdraw their request...

tuubaaku wrote:She says that states withdrawing their requests is basically irrelevant, because the Constitution doesn't mention that scenario. Do you think she's right? Obviously it's a bit less urgent if states can withdraw their request...

It also doesn't mention that they can't withdraw their request . . . so who knows how the courts would rule? It seems as if they should be able to.

I think given the leaders that would most likely be appointed to a Constitutional Convention, it would endanger our liberties and rights under the present Constitution. I don't see that it would improve anything, as I believe our current Constitution to be adequate when interpreted correctly.

I would seriously doubt that the leaders are going to actually change the constitution. I don't know the nature of the website, but it seems that the article is fairly radicall. I'm the first one to admit that politicians today are oftentimes dishonest, but I don't think they're going to rock the boat by changing the Constitution.

I also think that amendments are very important to our system of government. A balanced budget would be a very good amendment to have. A constitutional convention about this may be a radical method, but I don't see a reason to think that our whole system of government will be overturned because of a balanced budget constitutional amendment convention.

Amendments are very important, yes. There are also two methods of creating them, and the constitutional convention has never been used to amend our current constitution. I haven't heard anyone argue that this amendment is bad - it's good, but those articles are saying that it should be done the same way the other 27 were done.

There seems to be a good argument from the last Constitutional convention we had, that we could easily end up with a whole new document. I think that worked out well last time, but I have no faith in the politicians to only add an amendment, or to come out with a good re-written constitution.

I have heard a disturbing new line of reasoning from some people, which I believe has relevance to this discussion. Basically, I'm hearing the view that the present Constitution is an antique document with little or no bearing on or relevance to modern politics. What do you all think about this? I personally strongly disagree, and would maintain that the current Constitution is adequate when it is enforced, and when it is interpreted correctly.

I don't think you're going to find anybody here that holds that view. Yes, modern politics is different from late 18th c. politics, but that's what the amendment process is for. The Constitution is invaluable as a guarantor of liberty, and as a baseline for minimally acceptable government.

It may be argued that it isn't necessary, and in support of this point, some cite the British system, where long precedents have created a tradition of limited government. As a pessimist, I think that such a system is far more vulnerable to corruption and expansion than one limited by an iron rule of law like the Constitution. Both of our governments have all the apparatus necessary to create a police state, but only one has a rule of law that is above the leaders currently in power.

sergeantgiggles wrote:I don't think you're going to find anybody here that holds that view. Yes, modern politics is different from late 18th c. politics, but that's what the amendment process is for. The Constitution is invaluable as a guarantor of liberty, and as a baseline for minimally acceptable government.

So how is the Constitution a guarantor of liberty? It was never intended to be that, for it was widely accepted at the inception of our nation that unless a people feared God, tyranny would ensue.

sergeantgiggles wrote:It may be argued that it isn't necessary, and in support of this point, some cite the British system, where long precedents have created a tradition of limited government. As a pessimist, I think that such a system is far more vulnerable to corruption and expansion than one limited by an iron rule of law like the Constitution. Both of our governments have all the apparatus necessary to create a police state, but only one has a rule of law that is above the leaders currently in power.

Police states do not come because of a form of government but because of the rebellion of a people. Remember when the Israelites rejected God from being their king? The king that resulted from this was a tyrant (see 1 Sam. 8 ). Additionally, Peter reminds us that we are to be in subjection to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake (1 Pet. 2). That is, not just a republic, but a monarchy, democracy, etc. Although we know the form of government is important, it is not the most important consideration.

As far as an "iron rule of law" and a "rule of law that is above the leaders" . . . a brief survey of our current situation should inform us of the inaccuracy of this claim (the legalized murder of the unborn is but one example). We are experiencing today what Israel of old did when God was rejected as their king. We have sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind. Repentance in this area would be a return to God and his laws as revealed in the Bible. This must be our only rule of faith and practice (which includes civil affairs). We must proclaim with Isaiah that "the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will save us" (Isaiah 33:22). Anything less is an affront to the King of kings and Lord of lords.