October 16, 2019 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

The Myth of “Public” Art in Santa Monica

February 8, 2019

February 8, 2019

Over the past few years, the Stanton MacDonald Wright murals at the entrance to Santa Monica City Hall have stirred...

Beausoleil: First Parole Test for Newsom

February 10, 2019

February 10, 2019

Not many Californians under 60 can recall just who is the 71-year-old Bobby Beausoleil and what evils he did back...

AI in the Year 2020… Almost

February 11, 2019

February 11, 2019

By Nektar Baziotis In 1966 Gene Rodenberry’s “Star Trek” made its television debut on NBC. Audiences young and old were captivated...

Is Santa Monica’s Heart for Sale?

February 15, 2019

February 15, 2019

Note from SMa.r.t.: This article, in a longer form, was originally published four years ago but is still as pertinent...

Column: Adapting to Westside Vacancies

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019

By Avi Sinai We all see the vacant storefronts around the Westside and it begs the question – why are...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gridlocked Best Intentions

February 22, 2019

February 22, 2019

On any given evening (and especially weekends) pay a visit to north-bound 2nd Street between Broadway Avenue and Santa Monica...

No Excuses: Stop the Crime Wave

March 1, 2019

March 1, 2019

My mother turned 91 last Saturday. Happy Birthday, Mom! She has walked the streets of Santa Monica her whole life...

Column: Can we Solve Westside Traffic with more Housing Development?

March 5, 2019

March 5, 2019

About the author: Avi Sinai is the principal of HM Capital, a Los Angeles company specializes in hard money real...

Open Space… Is There Any Left?

March 9, 2019

March 9, 2019

Yes there is. Small as it is, there is about 2.5 acres in the heart of downtown waiting to be...

Letter to Editor: Former Mayor on Voting Rights Case

March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

By Paul Rosenstein Former Mayor of Santa Monica I hope the judge’s order for district elections is stayed during the...

I Eat, Therefore I Risk:

June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

Let’s start with the water bottle. Because that’s just such a strange modern mentality to begin with… the notion that...

Hometown Hero: Ted Winterer:

June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

2010 will be the first time Ted, his wife, the designer Beck Taylor, their children, Eleanor and Steele, and their...

There’s LUCE, and Then There’s “loose”…:

July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

Class stratification doesn’t have to be part of the dialogue about every single thing in America. Or does it? You...

SMa.r.t. OpEd: A Sense of Place:

September 2, 2016

September 2, 2016

By SMa.r.t In the mid-19th century, America’s West held the promise of cheap land and riches. In some ways, this...

Insurance Arrangement Shows PUC Hasn’t Change:

November 7, 2015

November 7, 2015

State commissions, like people and corporations, rarely change unless they’re given strong motivation; sometimes change has to be forced on...