Mike Jones: Con-con: A bad idea that won't go away

On the surface, it sounds perfectly reasonable: Delegates from all 50 states comes together to approve an amendment (or amendments) that will make the country better. What could be more democratic? Well, other than every voter in the country going to the polls to approve or disapprove every law, bill or amendment proposed in Congress.

That’s the dirty little secret: Pure democracy would likely be a mess. That’s why we actually have a representative democracy (or republic). Voters select people to represent them in Congress or as president. We trust them to do what is right for the country and us.

OK, it doesn’t work out perfectly every time. But, still, it’s better than governance by majority.

The first and last constitutional convention was held in 1787-88. We have gone almost 230 years and the country seems to be holding up just fine.

But the constitutional convention idea remains popular in some quarters. The latest revolves around an amendment that would force the federal government to balance its budget.

There are two avenues to amend the U.S. Constitution. One, and the most used and the most reasonable, is the path through Congress. Congress can approve an amendment with a two-thirds approval in each chamber, but three-fourths (38) of the states must ratify it before it is included in the Constitution.

That allows for discussion first in Congress and finally among the state legislatures.

The second avenue is the constitutional convention. If 34 states call for one, Congress must convene one.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, some states approved resolutions calling for a convention to require the government to balance its budget every year. But from the mid-1980s to 2010 no such resolutions passed, and about half the states that had passed such resolutions rescinded them.

Thirty states already have signed off on an Article V convention. Oklahoma could be No. 31. Senate Joint Resolution 4 is now being considered by the Oklahoma House.

That resolution contains two applications for a convention: One would approve a federal balanced budget amendment and another with a broad mandate to propose amendments to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the powers and jurisdictions of the federal government” and enact federal term limits.

Oklahoma’s populist roots remain. We simply don’t trust the federal government all that much. At least this resolution doesn’t call for a return to the gold standard.

But a constitutional convention would not be a well-oiled machine. In fact, even those pushing for such a convention might be surprised to know that once one begins, no one knows where it might head.

Here are a few possible pitfalls of what is commonly called a con-con:

• A convention can’t be limited to any one or two amendments. That could open it up to delegations (say, California) that might want to massage or do away with the Second Amendment. Donald Trump acolytes might want tinker with the First Amendment, especially that pesky freedom of speech and the press.

• Article V of the Constitution is silent concerning any rules of a convention. There is no blueprint on how to choose delegates, how many each state could have, how votes would be counted or how to require delegates to follow instructions from their legislatures.

• A convention could change the rules for ratification of amendments. Delegates might be pressured by outside interests. Delegates could vote to send amendments to the people for a popular vote. There’s that messy democracy again.

• Nobody, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention.

And you think a contested Republican presidential convention might get messy.

For a moment, let’s consider a federal balanced budget amendment. The argument goes that if some states, including Oklahoma, can live with such a law, why not the federal government? Or, if businesses and families must balance their budgets, why not the federal government?

First of all, few businesses or families have a debt-free budget. And states, families and businesses don’t have to, among many other things, maintain an active military, make sure millions of people receive their Social Security and Medicare and deal and compete with the economies of every other country on the planet.

The constitutional convention proposal is popular in Oklahoma, partially because of those populist roots. And the idea is helped along considerably by the support of former U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, one of Oklahoma’s more popular politicians.

But, it simply is a bad idea. A runaway convention could be a disaster. Proponents say those who resist a convention simply are stuck in the old ways and are fearful of something different. Well, sometimes old ways are best because they work. In this case, it’s worked for more than 200 years.

And, that’s not merely me talking. Here’s a few others with much better credentials than mine:

“I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?” — Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a constitutional convention. ... After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.” — Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.

“There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.” — Former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg.

During that first convention in 1787-88, George Washington said: “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.”

Washington also relied on delegates such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.

Any bets on how a 21st century convention might turn out?

The Oklahoma House can do the sensible thing and reject SJR 4. But those who really do cherish the Constitution and don’t want to see it tampered with, ought to make it clear that a constitutional convention is not the good idea that it sounds like.

Con-con? No, no.