Texas Governor Proposes Constititional Convention: This is a Very Bad Idea

I’m opposed to convening a Constitutional Convention for any reason whatsoever.

The governor of Texas has proposed it to add Constitutional Amendments in the following areas:

• Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs in one state
• Require Congress to balance its budget.
• Prohibit administrative agencies from creating law
• Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law
• Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a Supreme Court decision
• Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
• Restore balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution
• Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds
• Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law regulation.

I like all of these ideas, but not when a Constitutional Convention is required to pass them. 

What’s to stop a runaway convention from enacting other changes that one interest group or another want?   Given the difficulty in convening a Constitutional Convention, these groups will realize it’s their one chance to change the law, they’ll come out of the woodwork with their own proposals that are best left in constitutional debate classes and not put into practice.

I prefer to have the Congress propose an amendment, debate it, pass it and then submit it to the states for ratification.  3/4 of the states need to ratify it.

This is a MUCH safer (though much slower) way to push through a Constitutional Amendment.   A convention could conceivably make an irreversible mess out of our Constitution.   That’s not worth the risk.