**Previously Recorded by Phyllis Schlafly // 2/27/2009**
Powerful and politically active pressure groups, from both the right and the left, are now working to force significant changes in our Constitution. Some want a mandatory balanced budget; some want to get rid of the income tax; some want changes in the First Amendment’s treatment of religion; some want to get rid of the Electoral College; some want term limitation; and some want to eliminate our Separation of Powers in order to move us toward a parliamentary form of government. Having failed to get Congress to pass the legislation they seek, some of these special-interest groups have turned to the notion of calling a new constitutional convention, a method that is often referred to as a Con Con.
There are many problems with this approach. Most of those pushing for a Con Con say they want the convention to consider only their one amendment. However, it is not believable that many politically active groups would pass up the chance to force a Con Con to vote for their special interest. It’s not credible that the powerful forces working to take away our right to own guns would overlook a golden opportunity to get rid of the Second Amendment.
Many prestigious constitutional authorities say it is impossible for Congress or anyone else to restrict what a Con Con would do. The late Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
The confusion, uncertainty, and court cases involved in a Con Con would make us look foolish in the eyes of the world. A constitutional convention could not be the formula to restore respect for our government when a Con Con would start off making the world wonder if our American system of government will even survive. Tell your state legislators you absolutely do not want them to pass a resolution calling for a national constitutional convention.
