Is the Time Ripe for a Constitutional Convention? (Part 1) by Miguel A. Faria, MD

Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines the two methods by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. Article V reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Clearly, the American framers did not want to make it inordinately easy for future generation to amend the Constitution. They wanted proposed amendments to be well thought out and considered by the states before passage, rather than having imprudent amendments quickly added because of events or passions aroused in the heat of the moment.

The Founding Fathers convened a national convention in Annapolis in 1786 to discuss strengthening the federal government and improving interstate commerce under the Articles of Confederation. The convention in Annapolis was ineffective, but it was used as a springboard to call for another convention on the same subjects a year later. Instead of limiting the discussion to interstate commerce and minor revisions, James Madison immediately seized the opportunity to overturn the Articles of Confederation, which he thought completely inadequate for an effective federal government. Led by Madison, the founders then wrote and framed a completely new constitution. The convention of the states in Philadelphia became the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which completely altered the American form of government.

Obviously, what happened in 1787 was for the best at the time, given the talents, erudition, and wisdom of the Founding Father; but in America today with the rudderless political climate and a flagging educational system, as the columnist surprisingly described, one can only imagine the outcome of a new constitutional convention. Present American statesmen do not equate to the intellectual giants of 1787 that framed the American Constitution. Nor is there a national mandate behind them.

So, what kind of constitution would the modern politicians draft? Our Founders were all well read, and they based America’s founding documents on principles and historical precedents of government—the classical political philosophy of the Enlightenment and Natural Rights Theory. Today’s politicians, urged on by the progressive academicians and the biased liberal media, would base a new constitution on political correctness, and write a “living” document—that is, a flexible document that could be continually edited and changed according to the vicissitudes of the day.

Additional reasons cited by proponents of a convention of states include the need for a congressional term-limit and a balanced budget amendment. Yet, these two sound principles of government are already in place and could be accomplished simply by obeying the U.S. Constitution as it stands.

Congressional term limits occur in every election. An informed and vigilant electorate can vote ineffectual or corrupt representatives out of office. Regarding a balanced budget amendment, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 7 of the Constitution states that, “No Money should be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Fiscal responsibility and common sense dictate that a budget should be balanced, whether specifically mandated by the U.S. Constitution or not. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude…And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression…I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

For many years Jefferson’s advice was followed, and the United States prospered and did not incur a persistently climbing and crushing national debt—that is, not until the federal government transcended its constitutional limitations and became a completely unrestrained leviathan in the mid-1960s following the advent of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.

The Founding Fathers outlined another mechanism for amending the U.S. Constitution. Article V stated that Congress itself can propose an amendment “whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” and once the amendment is “ratified by three-fourths of the several states” it becomes “Part of this Constitution.” This simpler process has been successfully used 27 previous times. The convention of states method outlined in Article V may not be restricted to a single or even a few specific subjects and could be used as a vehicle to overturn the entire U.S. Constitution.

As it is, the Constitutional Republic’s federalist system has not been immune to tampering from those who favor empowering the federal government at the expense of the individual citizen. They have done this even without the need for calling for a Convention of States. In 1913, for example, three severe blows struck the American federalist system, curtailing a significant degree of economic freedom for Americans. The “troika” of legislation thrust upon the citizenry consisted of the following:

• The creation of the Federal Reserve System (or “the Creature from Jekyll Island”), the central banking system for the United States, which turned over responsibility for the nation’s finances and the American economy to a corporativist entity.
• The ratification of the 16th Amendment, which established a graduated federal income tax system. A graduated income tax is one of the planks in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Even Russia today does not have a graduated income tax, but a less intrusive 13% flat tax.
• The ratification of the 17th Amendment, which established the popular election of U.S. Senators rather than election by the state legislature, thereby disrupting federalism and the delicate balance of power that existed between the states and the federal government.

And so, even without a convention of states or a constitutional convention, changes have been made to the U.S. Constitution and in the American form of government by both emendation and legislation, and not always with beneficial effects.

Dr. Miguel A. Faria is Associate Editor in Chief world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI) and the author of numerous books. This article is excerpted from Dr. Faria’s 2024 book Contrasting Ideals and Ends in the American and French Revolutions.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Is the Time Ripe for a Constitutional Convention? (Part 1). HaciendaPublishing.com, March 3, 2025. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/is-the-time-ripe-for-a-constitutional-convention-part-1-by-miguel-a-faria-md/.

Copyright ©2025 HaciendaPublishing.com