Tea Parties Are Fine. But I Want to See a Convention.

"In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of 'tea party' rallies around the country, and various states are considering 'sovereignty resolutions' invoking the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan's proposal urges 'the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.' While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel. ...[A] Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution." --Georgetown University professor of constitutional law Randy Barnett

What a good idea. A Constitutional Convention. We've not had one since the 1st one and, in my opinion, it is far overdue.

Some History:
In 1787 representatives of 12 of our original States (Rhode Island declined to send anyone) met in Philadelphia to, purportedly, address problems in governing the United States of America, which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation following independence from England. The original purpose of the gathering was supposed to have been to revise the Articles of Confederation. However, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was from the outset to create a new government rather than make adjustments to the existing one.

Much of what the Founders did in constructing both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was based upon cultural and legal precedents going back as far as the 15th Century. The States that are repeatedly referred to in the Constitution were not administrative subdivisions (like a county, province or prefecture) of a cohesive nation but rather were sovereign States, each with its own government and population, who had some needs and concerns in common with their neighbor States.

Please recall that the preamble states that the Constitution is established "in Order to form a more perfect Union". The States were already unified in their desire to have a central body for their relations with foreign governments (war, diplomatic agreements, and resolving matters regarding the western territories). but the existing Continental Congress was found to be weak and fragmented by regional concerns.

From late May to mid-September the delegates debated, pondered, argued and prayed over the myriad problems they were there to address. The result of their work was a clear and simple document. Our Constitution.

Not all of the delegates were pleased with the convention's results; some left before the signing of the new Constitution, and three of those remaining refused to sign: Edmund Randolph, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was finally added and is considered the final compromise of the Convention - several states asked specifically for these amendments when ratifying the Constitution, and others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that a bill of rights would soon follow. Of the 39 who did sign, probably no one was completely satisfied.

Their views were ably summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said:

"There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..."

(For those who are interested, a very good synopsis of what occurred at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 can be found here.)

It was thought that, as it was written, little in the way of interpretation would be required because few and clear were the powers allocated to the new Government. It didn't take long though, only until the presidency of John Adams, for the Federal Government to begin assuming authority not given to it by the several sovereign States.

Today:
We find ourselves with a central government that is far too removed from, has far too much authority over, and far too little accountability to, the governed. As Prof Barnett suggests, even the hint of a Constitutional Convention would likely be enough to firmly get the attention of the Legislative(and one would suppose Executive and Judicial as well) branch. Even if no conventions are actually held they should get the message that the States that have enacted or are considering sovereignty resolutions are serious and are moving to reclaim their Constitutionally protected autonomy.

The concept of State's Rights shouldn't be as alien to us today as it is. American's fought a war during the mid-19th Century over sovereign State's rights to self determination.

By the way. The flag at the top of this post is called The Bonnie Blue and, though originally a flag of the Republic of West Florida, it has long been used as a symbol of support for State's rights.