Soon after the formulation of the Constitution, a wise old Franklin confided:

I beg I may not be understood to infer that our general Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal Constitution....yet I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in Whom all inferior spirits live, move, and have their being.

Some 225 years later, views regarding the Constitution have been shifting dramatically. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post described the Constitution as ��confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.� The majority of the world�s political, religious, and literary documents are more than 100 years old. Should we scrap them all and reinvent civilization? Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, seems to think so. He said, �All constitutions are human artifacts, and one must always remember the propensity of error even in the finest human beings.� He continued deprecation of the Founding Fathers as ��creatures of their own time, well aware that the future would bring different realities and almost certainly require different solutions to problems of government�� While problems do vary in form, the reality of human nature from which they originate has not changed in 6,000 years.

Richard Labinski of the University of Kentucky wrote The Second Constitutional Convention: How the American People Can Take Back Their Government. Last fall, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School and Mark Meckler of Tea Party Patriots presided over a conference at Harvard of several hundred scholars considering the possibility of calling another constitutional convention. A wide range of issues have been proposed for a convention to deliberate: popular election of the president, a line-item veto, congressional term limits, illegal immigration, English as the official language, termination of life tenure for judges, banning the influence of foreign laws, limiting the roll of money in politics, repaying the national debt. As of 2008, 32 states have passed resolutions calling for a convention to require a balanced budget. As Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center pointed out, one can soon ascertain from these topics that the call for a convention" .... is not the work of wild-eyed leftists intending to gut the Bill of Rights. This is an effort by conservative legislators who are alarmed by the growing power of government." Many of these conservatives work with the American Legislative Exchange Council and Ten Amendments For Freedom, Inc.

Do noble causes and good intentions justify the calling of a second constitutional convention? What are the inherent risks of doing so? A careful reading of Article V generates more questions than answers. First, it does not stipulate who the delegates might be, how they are selected, or their qualifications. If Congress decides these vital factors, one must be concerned about who controls Congress. Second, who controls the agenda of the convention? The 1787 convention was called specifically to discuss the conduct of interstate commerce under the Articles of Confederation. The unintended result was the demise of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of a totally new document. This demonstrates that once a convention is called, the states have no control of the agenda. Corpus Jurus Secundum, a compilation of state supreme court rulings, agrees that a convention�s freedom to set its own agenda is unlimited. Thus, the potential exists for the very real possibility that the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution could be replaced with who knows what. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote ��there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a constitutional convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.� Third, if the result of a convention is unacceptable, what alternative is there? Proponents of a second convention note that the Constitution requires ratification by 75% of the states. Do not count on it. In 1787, the Articles of Confederation required ratification by 100% of the states. This was ignored and the new constitution was allowed to determine its own requirements for ratification. This precedent means a second convention could ignore the current constitution and establish its own requirements for ratification of a new governing document. Ratification by the states is not even assured.

God told the prophet Ezekiel that ��I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel�� God charged Ezekiel that ��you shall give them warning�� (Ezek. 3:17) Watchmen were sentinels posted on the walls of cities to observe enemy movements and alert citizens of danger. Silence would have been a cowardly and fatal dereliction of duty. Today, we live in unwalled cities but God still calls watchmen to warn besieged souls of impending danger. Of our Constitution, law professor Richard Epstein of New York University cautioned that "revision of the document will move us dangerously along a path of greater and more powerful government at the national and state levels that will only make matters worse" Tom DeWeese advised that "there are powerful forces who consider that document (Constitution) to be antiquated and a hindrance to their vision of an all powerful government." Since the Constitution's inception, its enemies' strategy has been one of gradual deconstruction of the Founding Fathers� original intent. If a second convention is ever convened, all that the Confederacy was and all that America is could be lost in one fatal strike. Watchmen are sounding the alarm. Will citizens heed the warning?

Fr. Richard W. Rudd
Hughes Camp Chaplain