Constitutional convention? Why open that Pandora’s Box? – San Bernardino Sun

Two of California’s last three governors have wanted to help organize and promote constitutional conventions, either on the state or federal level. They’ve both been dangerously wrong about this.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted only a state convention, aiming to take some of the clumsiness out of California’s governing documents, which changes as often as every two years if voters pass ballot initiatives.

But current Gov. Gavin Newsom is more ambitious, seeking the first national constitutional convention since 1787, even before George Washington was elected president.

Newsom thinks he can confine such a convention to one issue: gun control.

Ironically, these seemingly simple calls from a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat put them both in the camp of the far-right Republicans of the Convention of States organization, which has been seeking a national constitutional revision meeting for years. So far, the COS effort has garnered support from more than half the 34 states needed to call a convention.

Like Newsom and Schwarzenegger, COS claims its convention could be confined to its narrow goals, which include imposition of severe spending restraints on Congress, along with term limits for senators and Congress members and a few other officials. (Presidents are already limited to two terms by the existing Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.)

And there’s the problem: Because there’s never been a second constitutional convention, no one knows if such a gathering’s activity can be confined to one or two subjects, or whether everything would become fair game. The First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech and freedom of religion, might disappear. So might the Second Amendment’s guarantees of gun rights. Or the 14^th Amendment guarantees of due process in all criminal proceedings. And on and on.

In short, a constitutional convention would be a Pandora’s Box and no one knows what institution might supervise or limit its scope. For just one example, since the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as one of today’s major authorities, why would anyone believe that court’s justices might have jurisdiction over the doings of a constitutional revision convention that might potentially change or eliminate the court itself?

That’s why San Francisco’s ultra-leftist Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener wants the Legislature this year to revoke its approval of a resolution calling for a convention to deal with gun control. Wiener, who has been wrong about many things including reshaping California housing to make it far more dense than before, is right about this. There’s even the possibility that California’s call for a gun control confab could be added to the COS efforts for a convention dealing with vastly different issues. No one knows.

Said Wiener, “There is no way I want California to accidentally help these extremists trigger a constitutional convention where they (might) rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth.”

Wiener’s fears are becoming more common, as states like Illinois and New Jersey, which previously had open calls for a constitutional convention, have rescinded their prior actions. Any that are not rescinded remain valid indefinitely and could be used by COS or anyone else wanting to call a convention, whatever their motives.