Why a 2nd Constitutional Convention May be a Terrible Thing

 I just received this mailer from Gavin Newsom. I do love Newsom, Ed and i meet him quite a few years ago and were very impressed. On the other hand, this idea blows chow.

You might wonder why I would not support this. I think the idea of addressing some Constitutions shortcomings might be great. I would love to put some limits around gun use and background checks. Or add a clause declaring equal rights for all Americans. (Remember the ERA amendment that was kicking around when I was young - but failed?)

But I am NOT in favor of a 2nd Constitutional Convention now, nor have I ever been. And it is sneakily gaining ground with people.  In addition to California, 19 other states have called for a convention. Most of the previous calls been from a conservative view looking to limit government and curb funding. (Yes, even though they could curb funding without a convention, if they all voted for it.)

But you cannot limit what the Convention can or cannot do. Sure, they might be able to change some of the wording on the 2nd Amendment (like putting that comma back into the Amendment). Or Texas may want to force an Amendment that says the US must balance the budget yearly.

But you get 50 states representatives, and you don't know what can come out of it. Maybe the states will allow nullification of federal laws. Or write in a clause that says one state doesn't have to honor another state's laws. Say liberal states want this clause to counter the laws against women getting bodily autonomy and conservative states want this clause so Alabama doesn't have to honor gay marriages.

Or they could just write an entirely new Constitution. That is what the First Constitutional Convention did. It was called to fix the Articles of Confederation and decided they had to start over.

Add California to the dark green states to count up to 20.
If a total of 34 ask for a 2nd Convention, it MUST be called.
per the Constitution we have now