January 29, 2023 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

The Dangerous Constitutional Convention Measure

By Tom Elias

Thomas B. Elias, Columnist

The California ballot has seen plenty of dangerous propositions over the years, and yet another one may face voters wherever they cast votes next November.

Fortunately, virtually all such questionable proposals have been beaten at the polls or struck down by courts if voters acted irresponsibly. There was the AIDS quarantine measure put forward by crackpot presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche in 1986, which aimed to place everyone with the disease in remote detention camps. Would Ervin “Magic” Johnson be part owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers and president of the Lakers today if that one had passed?

There was the 1994 Proposition 187, which sought to deprive undocumented immigrants of health care, schooling and anything else its sponsors could think of. That one passed handily, endorsed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, but was swiftly struck down by a federal judge. And so on.

Now comes a danger of a different sort, embodied in a seemingly innocuous measure that’s about to begin circulating with hopes of getting a yes-or-no vote just over a year from now.

It’s titled “The California Call for a Constitutional Convention,” and it contains some fine ideas, including calls for Constitutional amendments to ensure equal pay for equal work and limit corporate “personhood” to invalidate the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The initiative also calls for California to participate in a constitutional convention to push for creating a peaceful way for states to secede from the Union and/or negotiate treaties with foreign countries, and has a provision demanding that federal funding be distributed to states in proportion to what their taxpayers put into the federal kitty.

Most of those aims are laudable, but there’s absolutely nothing to guarantee that any of these ideas would attain reality if this measure passes. Rather, there’s the definite possibility for major alteration to the Bill of Rights, which now protects things like free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and guarantees there will be no official state religion.

How could this happen when the convention call includes very specific subjects to be taken up and none involves the Bill of Rights? Easy. Once you begin a constitutional convention, the delegates can take it where they like.

That’s one reason why even though many states have officially called for a convention to enshrine a balanced-budget amendment, that call has never gotten support from three-quarters of the states, as required to get a convention started.

There’s also little chance that even if California calls for a convention to take up its plentiful legitimate grievances, it will get the needed support from other states.

The sponsors of the new initiative, which goes by the abbreviated term CalConCon, in effect concede this. They maintain on their website (www.calconcon.com) that any convention call ever issued by a state – even 100 years ago or more – can be included in the total needed now.

That’s because just as the Constitution sets no limit on where delegates can take a convention, it also has no expiration date for convention calls, which now number 27. It’s an unfortunate omission by the Founding Fathers, who turn out to be fallible after all.

Marcus Ruiz Evans of Fresno, whose 2012 book California’s Next Century called for semi-sovereign status for the state and essentially began the Calexit secession movement that spawned this convention initiative, maintains there would be no “runaway convention.”

But the campaign website notes that “the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of rescinding an application (for a convention) or limiting (it) to a single subject…”

Still, says Ruiz, many academics have forecast a runaway convention would not happen. But how does anyone know where activists from Texas or Montana might take the meeting? Or whether there would be neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen among the voting delegates?

It’s true California several years ago called for a constitutional convention to get rid of the Citizens United decision. Fortunately, in part because of the dangers involved, no such meeting occurred.

Is it really worth risking free speech and freedom of religion or the right to bear arms for the unlikely possibility of winning the right to secede peacefully?

The only rational conclusion is that sponsors of this measure are being shortsighted, concerned more for their immediate goals than about making sure Americans’ fundamental rights remain untouched.

Related Posts

Column: State Usurping Key Powers From Cities

January 28, 2023

January 28, 2023

All over California last fall, hundreds of the civic minded spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars running for...

Column – A California Positive: Kids Swarm Extra Classes

January 24, 2023

January 24, 2023

By Tom Elias It’s become a cliché, the shibboleth that California has lousy public schools and most of the kids...

SMa.r.t. Column: Let’s Get Real and Apply Practical Common Sense

January 20, 2023

January 20, 2023

This week’s column is a letter to the City Council, written by Arthur Jeon and sent in this past week....

SMa.r.t. Column: Water Water Everywhere

January 13, 2023

January 13, 2023

The new year has started with water, lots of WATER. The west coast and particularly central and northern California have...

S.M.a.r.t. Looks Ahead

December 31, 2022

December 31, 2022

It’s that time of the year again, when people and organizations look ahead and make resolutions to try to do...

SMa.r.t. Column: Refugees in our Midst

December 22, 2022

December 22, 2022

We published this article exactly five years ago. We leave it to the reader to consider whether this article is...

Column – Superintendent’s Message: Farewell SMMUSD

December 21, 2022

December 21, 2022

Dear Parents, Guardians, Staff, Students and Community Members, I write this last message to the community with both a heavy...

Pacific Ocean Park– A Positive & Optimistic Place in Santa Monica’s History

December 16, 2022

December 16, 2022

It’s the Holidays again, and we hope your spirits of joy and happiness are being well celebrated! In continuation of...

The Street Seen: Crescent Bay Park

December 12, 2022

December 12, 2022

Our guest columnist this week is Ocean Park local, Mark Gorman. Mark writes a semi-monthly local blog he calls “Street...

​​Column: No One Very Pleased as New Rooftop Solar Rules Improve

December 9, 2022

December 9, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Only rarely does the California Public Utilities Commission, long known as the least responsive agency in...

A SMa.r.t. Thanksgiving

November 23, 2022

November 23, 2022

SMart has much to be thankful for this year: We are thankful for the courage of all who face death...

SMa.r.t. Column: Renting and Owning. The Santa Monica Long View

November 18, 2022

November 18, 2022

In May, 2020, SMa.r.t. urged the city to consider establishing community land trusts, in which community-owned land is leased at...

SMa.r.t. Column: Santa Monica Housing Development – Poison Pills, Bad Data and the Blame Game

November 11, 2022

November 11, 2022

Prior councils have made long term decisions that have locked the city into an extraordinarily fixed path, the consequences of...

Column – Gas Gougers Beware: California Is Onto You at Last

November 11, 2022

November 11, 2022

By Tom Elias It has taken more than 50 years of on-and-off gasoline price gouging, but at long last California...

Video: Santa Monica College on Measure SMC

November 7, 2022

November 7, 2022

Enjoy this live interview with Measure SMC campaign co-chair Shari Davis in this paid segment.