**(Previously recorded by Phyllis Schlafly, April 13, 2009)**
Resolutions have been introduced into several state legislatures to ask Congress to call a new constitutional convention. That's known as a Con Con. Calling a new constitutional convention is about the worst idea anybody could imagine. We already have a U.S. Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians are not obeying it and judges are indulging in too much activism.
If we were to hold a new constitutional convention, the most influential players would be Big Media, giving us round-the-clock television coverage. The 2008 presidential campaign proved that the media consider themselves actors in the political process, not merely reporters. Outside of a constitutional convention hall, demonstrators would be demanding constitutional changes for their special interests. Demonstrations would be staged by gay activists and their opponents, pro abortionists and pro-lifers, radical feminists, the environmentalists, gun control advocates, animal rights extremists, D.C. statehood agitators, those who want to relax immigration and those who would restrict it, mortgage defaulters, and the unions — all demanding consideration of amendments to recognize their claimed rights.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows a Con Con if 34 states pass resolutions calling for it, but that does not mean we have to have one. A Con Con would be a recipe for political chaos, controversy, confrontation, litigation, and judicial activism because there are no rules in the Constitution or in federal law to limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates.
The miracle of our great United States Constitution is that it has lasted for 220 years while preserving individual liberties. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. We should hang on to the Constitution we have.
