Runaway Federal spending, gay marriage, abortion and right to life issues, illegal immigration and "anchor" babies, the repealing of the 16th Amendment and the fine-line ambiguity of the Second Amendment are all problems that I would love to see solved through legislative means, if this were a perfect world. But, as we all know the best of intentions among even the most virtuous of us often go awry. This very truth is why the Constitution was so limited in its scope in the first place. The Founding Fathers designated most rights to be in the hands of the individual states and the citizens of those states, not in the hands of a centralized behemoth like we have in Washington D.C., simply because the less power that is concentrated in a few hands, the less ability those few hands have of abusing that power. Pragmatism was a central tenet of the Founder's world-view.
Yet troubled and hounded conservatives clamor for some solution to the unintended consequences of the Founding Father's silence on issues largely unforeseen. However, is this method, which has not been employed since 1787, truly the best way to ensure the traditional values of the majority of Americans are respected, or is this the noose with which we will hang ourselves and doom those and other principles of our nation? Could this instead of reclaiming lost ground, result in the loss of what little ground we still have to stand on? Answering the practical questions we must face isn't easy. There are a lot of issues, but in my mind the most logical place to look first is the actual text of the Fifth Article of the Constitution of the United States which outlines the means of holding a Constitutional Convention to see exactly what the guidelines are:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
What insurance does this give us, the average citizen, that the process will go smoothly? Are there regulations on who can be appointed as a delegate? No. Are there rules to ensure the Bill of Rights can be altered only within certain parameters or under certain conditions? No. Is there anything in the text that can be seen as a means to stop wholesale changes if things get out of hand, or the delegates sent to the convention somehow don't actually represent the will of the people when the Convention is convened? No. The article is silent on every issue save a couple of line items having to do with taxes in the Ninth Section of the First Article. Whatever happens in a Constitutional Convention becomes the absolute authority and governing law of the United States with the only insurance being that it will need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Relying on the single rule that gives 75 percent of the population the responsibility of ensuring our rights, when they largely have not been educated adequately on the principles which gave rise to the need for The Constitution as it is presently, doesn't look at all like a promising proposition to me. Then you consider the fact that the largest states have routinely leaned towards collectivist ideals over the past several decades and the prospect for a successful campaign to halt the pervasive immorality and corruption that triggered the Convention looks even worse.
Disheartening is a word not adequate to describe the likely results of a Constitutional Convention convened by politicians who routinely ignore and blatantly thwart the will of the people under the pretenses of following that very will, when they have in the past shown no intention or predisposition of respecting that will. And is it necessary to state that even if things were to be changed to something of a form of what we the people would like to see, it is likely the politicians could easily make fundamental changes in the meaning of our Bill of Rights with just a word or two altered in key places when they enlist the help of the media, lobbyists and lawyers? The dangers are obvious to the cautious observer. In a matter of hours, our rights as citizens that we have believed to be inalienable God-given rights, such as the right to petition the government, our right to own any kind of weapon to defend ourselves and our families from criminals or a tyrannical government, our rights to own property and administer it as we see fit, even our basic right to life and self-determination could be swept away!
The benefit of imposing moral ideals in a few matters upon a belligerent government which consistently seeks to circumvent and change the nature of our society is far out-weighed by the potential wholesale changes to the very nature of our Republic. Yet, there is another argument as to why holding a Constitutional Convention is unnecessary and possibly even against the spirit of the very principles such a Convention would be trying to protect.
Arguments can, will and probably have been made that the proposed changes to the Constitution are necessary because the Congress, the President and the Courts through various means have twisted the Founder's intentions and granted themselves power they were never meant to have. The Federal Government over the last century has ballooned to a point that it is truly unrecognizable if we hold it up in comparison to the description that is laid out in our nation's founding documents. We could debate how this happened and why it happened until we are blue in the face; I would agree with everyone that the current situation we find ourselves in is not at all how things should be and something should be done about it. However, wouldn't it be more prudent - if there is the political will to actually change the Constitution - to rather harness that sentiment and push for political changes that would simply reassert the authority of the Constitution over the government in the first place? After all, what is to say that even after going through the whole process of getting the necessary states in line to call a Constitutional Convention, ensuring the delegates will make the changes that the people want, taking the time to educate the average citizen why the changes are necessary so that they will be voted in by the three-fourths of the states necessary to ratify the changes, that after all of this the Congress, the President and the Courts won't simply ignore the will of the people as they already have been doing?
Wouldn't the simpler method be taking the political will we see developing among the average citizens and using that in a synergistic way to educate the average citizen on the ideals of liberty once again? A generation of men and women had to go about it this way 230 years ago, why should we go about things any differently now? What was it about their beliefs which caused them to give of themselves and risk their lives for freedom, where our generation asks the very government who opposes us to ensure that freedom for us?
There is a fundamental difference between the principles which brought about the Constitution of the United States and the underlying attitudes which are the basis for the current efforts to change it. Individualism is defined as a doctrine in which the interests and rights of the individual are foremost of importance. In a society where Individualism is the underlying philosophy, people are seen as having value intrinsically. Individualism teaches self-reliance, self-determination and ensures freedom because the group is secure in their rights when the unit that comprises the group - the individual - is held higher than the government which is there to serve it, and is allowed to work out their own responsibilities and issues without interference from the government except when that individual infringes upon the rights of another.
The freedoms of worship, association, speech, conscience, property ownership, privacy and the freedom to protect yourself, your family and your property all stem from the philosophy of Individualism. For the Individualist, the solution to a problem within society is for the individuals within it to work towards a solution in a way that does not infringe upon the freedoms of anyone else, because everyone else within that society has value and rights that are equal to their own. This is why the Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal under God. The highest authority is no man, no collection or committee of men/women, but rather each individual as they were created in the same form and for the same purpose. As such, changes within society would be achieved through education, rather than force of law. Since people are equal, they automatically have the right to make their own choices, regardless of whether or not someone else agrees with their choice - again, as long as that choice doesn't infringe upon the rights of another.
Some will contend that this leaves the door open for all sorts of immoral practices and practical dangers, after all there are all sorts of things that society at large does not agree with, but do not necessarily infringe upon the rights of any other individual. Medical Marijuana and the war on drugs as a whole comes to mind as an example. People will argue that drug use leads to crime and because of this drug use should be outlawed as a means of preemptively working against high crime rates. Yet no one is at the same time proposing that non-drug users have free reign to plunder their neighbor's house: The existing laws punishing theft are in affect regardless of the motivation to break them.
However well-meaning and rational the laws in the war on drugs sound, most would have to admit that they have not worked very well when practically applied. Like prohibition early in the last century, the drug war has only served to push those people underground who have found themselves addicted to chemicals. This move out of society and away from healthy relationships that could help them out of their addictions is counter-productive. Christians in particular should pay close attention to this dilemma as there is a dimension to this which deals very intimately with the foundations of our faith. Jesus told us to proclaim the Gospel to all mankind. How are we fulfilling the responsibility of sharing the love of Christ with the "least of these" whom He came to save, when with our demands for legislation that enforces our morality we publicly judge and divorce ourselves from those who need to see that morality lived up close daily?
This is not how Individualism and personal responsibility - an inherent tenet of Christian faith - should be worked out. Rather it is irresponsibility which demands others enforce a set of rules for us to make us comfortable with a society that only reflects our beliefs because there would be penalties if they did not. Where is faith in this equation? I daresay it is effectively dead.
How do the proposed Amendments fit within this mindset then? Lets take the Marriage Amendment as an example. The proposed Marriage Amendment has been put forward because of the infringement upon the majority by a very vocal minority which lives a lifestyle that many disagree with, yet has found political traction due to very powerful lobbyists and political action groups. If we analyze the movement that gave rise to the perceived necessity of the Marriage Amendment we can see it goes against many of the ideals of freedom as described by Individualism. It seeks to force an idea and belief system upon individuals simply because a group of people believe those individuals ought to see things differently - not unlike the laws enacted by conservatives such as the war on drugs. It does so with the aid of political mechanisms which violate the principles of Individualism and are therefore philosophically incompatible with the system of government they seek to influence. It is in violation because if that system of government was working within the boundaries that was set up for it originally, these groups would have no ability to influence it in the first place. Instead individual conscience and freedom of association would automatically allow for the desires of both groups because those groups would not have the ability to politically or religiously oppress the other. Regardless of how vocal and public their arguments may be, each individual's rights would be inherently equal if the system was within the boundaries set up by the Constitution because lobbying and favoritism within the political system wouldn't be taking place.
The fact is that all of the Amendments that are seen as necessary to ensure conservative's individual rights are upheld would be unnecessary if all individual rights had been upheld to begin with.
So how did we get to this point and what is going on? Collectivism is the opposite of Individualism, and as such it enthrones the group as having authority over the individual. There is a descriptive phrase which is used to the point of exhaustion which comes from this mindset: "For the greater good." Collectivism takes the individual's rights and flips them on their head. Instead of having intrinsic value as a human being, collectivism teaches that all people have value only as far as they contribute to the well-being of the group. The collectivist approach to a problem is to seek to gain authority over the individuals within it or any other perceived group to enforce the perspective of that particular group. This is democracy in it's purest form: Majority rule. This is also why the Founding Fathers regarded democracy as one of the most evil forms of government ever devised. There is a simple and logical explanation as to why this should not be the way political movements or any other movements are allowed to develop: You cannot have a group without the individuals which make up that group. Therefore, the very idea that the group, which doesn't exist except as an idea, can have rights that the parts that make up that group do not is irrational. You cannot give someone else something you do not have.
The history of where it came from, how it infiltrated our society and our system of government is way too long for this already long blog post. Regardless of the details, any objective viewer can see the obvious signs of it's tentacles woven tightly around the carcass of what was a thriving nation. However difficult the task may seem, I believe the correct course of action to restore the nation as it was meant to be and to replace the Constitution to it's former position of authority over the Federal Government and the various states, we as citizens need to take up the mantle of those who sacrificed their comfort and risked their livelihoods for it, and we should do so in a manner which doesn't betray the principles which gave us the rights we are now trying to reclaim, which would just inevitably land us back in the same situation we find ourselves in now, but probably worse.
The Constitutional Convention is not necessary, because the Founders gave us a Constitution that is adequate for a people that take the principles of Individualism seriously and live in freedom responsibly. That is our challenge, and I believe it is the only real road we have back to where things should be. Freedom cannot come at the cost of another individual's ability to live their lives as they see fit, unless we are willing to be intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that we see ourselves as superior to those we disagree with. In that honesty, I believe that we will realize that while we are trying to correct our brother for the twig in their eye, to the detriment of all of us, we are ignoring the log in our own.
