Constitutional Convention Concerns

Christian Gomez is co-director of Operations for the John Birch Society and is a contributor for The New American. He currently co-hosts the JbS web-series, BiRCH'N the USA. For some time there's been a lot of controversy, even among conservatives, about a Constitutional Convention, or a ConCon for short. According to Christian, the term, "Constitutional Convention" has been in our legal vernacular for over a century. You can go back to the 2nd edition of Black's Law Dictionary published in 1910 and on to the most current editions published today. They define "Constitutional Convention" as, "A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising or amending its constitution." So terms such as "Article V Convention" or "Constitutional Convention" are interchangeable, historical terms. However, lately (since about 2010 or 2011), there's been a movement in favor of a convention. They rename their efforts in more flattering fashion by using phrases such as "Convention of States" or "Convention of the States." Whatever phrase you want to use, some indicate this is needed in order to balance the budget or to limit the power of Congress or to change what are perceived as outdated rules. Are there dangers lurking about within such efforts that could subvert the Constitution? You decide what motives might be involved when you review this important edition of Crosstalk. More Information: jbs.org