Staws upon the Camel's Back

There are others besides myself who believed it was time to convene a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Witness the recent New York Times article: Clamor Rises to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, the powers-that-be -- which include the New York Times -- were fearful of what such a convention might wrought.  That is to say that the powers-that-be were fearful of what the People, lawfully assembled as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- might decide is in their best interest at such a convention.  No more anti-democratic sentiment can be espoused.

Significantly, the New York Times perpetuates the myth that such a convention would "amend" the Constitution stating: "Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the United States are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn’t done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution."  This of course is simply wrong.  The convention would not "rewrite the Constitution" but instead could only propose amendments to the Constitution which would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Hardly a recipe for radical changes to a document that has served well so many for so long.

Perhaps the best argument for such a Convention is grounded in who opposes it:  Justice Antonin
Scalia, the longtime leader of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, who observed this summer: “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

My answer, Justice Scalia, is the "Wisdom of the Crowd" which is exactly what happened.