Steam Roller! Look Out!
Radio Commentary, 90.7, 91.7 New Life FM, March 1, 2014 – By Sue Ella Deadwyler
Good morning, Jim. Last year’s S.R. 371, calling for a constitutional convention, passed the Senate March 7, 2013 and the House February 20, 2014. So, it’s a done deal. HOWEVER, two other calls – S.R. 70 and S.R. 736 – have passed the Senate and are in the House. PLUS another call – H.R. 1215 – passed the House and is in the Senate. MEANING, a conference committee COULD be called to sort out the EXACT language these guys are looking for and THEN pass it out of committee using one of those bills as a vehicle, pass it and send it to Congress as Georgia’s call for an Article V convention. How about them apples???? The steamroller is in motion and it’s rolling in three vehicles!
During all this, I was called a “Nay-Sayer,” a name I wear proudly, because it means I’m against a constitutional convention and I’m in good company. In 2004 the entire General Assembly became Nay-Sayers by rescinding every call Georgia ever made for a constitutional convention. I, also, feel honored to be among Nay-Sayers, such as University of Maryland’s School of Law Professor Christopher Brown who said, “We already have three branches of government, why create [a fourth] ‘unknown power’ to do even more mischief?”
Then, Nay-Sayer Neil Cogan of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, said, “My understanding of the Federal Convention is that … neither the Congress nor the States may limit the amendments to be considered and proposed … [T]he convention may be controlled in subject matter only by itself and by the people… through the ratification process.”From the Utah School of Law Jefferson Fordham said, “A convention might propose a single amendment but it would clearly have a wider range.” Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Goldberg said it this way, “[Proponents] should be reminded that the convention of 1787 [was called] ‘for the sole and express purpose’ of revising the Articles of Confederation [but they] discarded the Articles and drafted the current U.S. Constitution, despite [the] limited mandate.”
Stanford Law School’s Gerald Gunther said, “In my view, a convention cannot be effectively limited. But whether or not I am right, it is entirely clear that we have never tried the convention route … and … assurances about the ease with which a single issue convention can be had are unsupportable….”
In a nutshell, this is what all of them said: An Article V convention has never been called because it’s an unknown power. Its subject matter can be controlled only by the convention itself and the people of the states … through … ratification … not through a convention. Once a convention begins, state law will not prevail over the actions or outcome. Regardless of well-intentioned restrictions, the convention would create its own agenda and COULD completely revamp the current constitution. For Georgia Insight, I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.