I have a letter in the New York Review of Books responding to Elizabeth Drew’s article about money in politics. (I had done another review of that review here.)
The point of my letter was to correct what seemed to me (and others) to be the criticism that Elizabeth Drew had made of my support for (as she put it) a “Constitutional Convention.” Such a convention, she had written, “would be a disaster since it could lead to all sorts of other proposals.”
That sounded like the fear expressed so often of a runaway convention — the common bugbear of those opposing an Article V convention. My letter tries to explain why such a fear is a confusion, and that at most, an Article V convention can simply “propose” (as the Constitution puts it) amendments, which have no effect unless ratified by 38 state legislatures (or state conventions).
Drew responds to my letter by revealing the true source of her concern. It’s not a convention. It is any amendment to address any problem created by our ongoing conventional convention (aka, the Supreme Court). As Drew writes,
The obvious danger is that a certain mood would sweep the country to amend the Constitution by, say, banning all abortions, lowering the wall between church and state, or taking the ambiguity out of the Second Amendment so as to make it clear that guns could be purchased without exception. Therefore it would be foolhardy in not just my opinion but that of others who are also serious about campaign finance reform, to encourage, enable, set a precedent for mitigating the protections now provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
So here’s where democracy is, some 228 years after our Constitution was drafted. Though every generation in the history of our Republic has amended the Constitution, we alone can’t be trusted to do it again. That in the face of the democracy-disabling decisions of the Supreme Court, we should just sit silent because who knows what craziness 38 state state legislatures might embrace?
As a card carrying member of America’s elite, I find this sort of elitism pathetic. And as someone who is spending more and more time in state legislatures, watching them do their work, I also find the fear completely baseless. Show me the numbers — real numbers, not lawyer’s hypotheticals — that support the idea that it is even conceivable that a single house in 13 states would not block amendments “banning all abortions, lowering the wall between church and state, or taking the ambiguity out of the Second Amendment so as to make it clear that guns could be purchased without exception.” The very idea is ridiculous.
The “mood … sweep[ing some in] the country” that we should really fear is that democracy in general, and the Constitution in particular, needs to be left to the experts. But we’ve been there. We’ve done that. The result is SuperPACs and a Congress that literally almost no one trusts. That, Ms. Drew, is the real “disaster.”