Never know what you're going to get

Did we manage to sidestep a mess? The Ohio legislature talked about calling for a national Constitution Convention and then dropped the idea. I know Michigan has a clause in its constitution that every 20 years the citizens must be asked whether to consider rewriting all or part of it. That has been done in the past (I think in the 1960s) but the wise vote since then has been to say no, simply because, like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get (thanks, Forest Gump).

I didn't realize there is also a provision for a con-con in Article V of the US Constitution. The convention gets called when 2/3 of the states, or 34 of them, ask for one. This allows the states to create an amendment if Congress refuses to do it (such as protect marriage). But you might need the Wisdom of Solomon (or at least the US Supremes) to figure out what Ohio's possible efforts mean. Between 1978 and 1983, 32 states called for a convention to create an amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Are those calls still open? What about the 10 states that have since rescinded the call? Would Ohio become 33 because it is also, at least on the surface, about creating a balanced budget amendment?

The problem of such a convention -- which is why we routinely reject them in Michigan -- is that the participants are not restricted to the subject that was the reason to call it. If the con-con creates only amendments they must be ratified by 3/4 of the states (individually or as a package). But the con-con can create a whole new Constitution (as was done in 1787) and with it create the rules by which the new one is to replace the old.

Fortunately, the Right is as suspicious of the Liberals sneaking vile things into the new document as the Left is of Conservatives.

The top of the Wikipedia entry for Constitutional Conventions says the article may not be neutral. It is interesting to read the talk page to see what the complaints are.