Image for post
Image for post
The most recent Constitutional Convention, 1787

Republicans Successfully Executed Their Plan To Control A Huge Number Of Statehouses Around The Country. So What’s Phase Two?

Liberals Are Squawking About The Imminent Danger Of A Constitutional Convention

And they’re right: there’s reason for concern. Or at least reason to keep an eye on the Republicans who are trying to make it happen. Before it’s too late. Again.

The Republican takeover of state legislatures and governorships is often told as a tale of stealthy strategizing by Republican operatives while Democrats got caught napping. But really, Republicans made no secret of their ambitions. And Democrats weren’t napping: they were dead asleep.

Because it didn’t happen slowly, over a period of time, with little fanfare. It actually happened pretty darn quick and out in the open. Right now, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures more than double the number of state legislative chambers are controlled by Republicans than Democrats. And Republicans in more than half of all states have control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s office, compared to just 7 states for Democrats.

Based on several sources we checked, as recently as 2010, those numbers were almost exactly the opposite! And that wasn’t that long ago! Here’s a map to illustrate:

Image for post
Image for post

Now, Phase Two for many of those same Republicans seems to be engineering a Constitutional Convention. Which would be the first since George Washington had one in 1787.

That means they want to rewrite parts of the Constitution, add amendments, drop amendments, change amendments. How close are they to setting it up? Well, there are two ways of convening a convention:

  1. Congress can do it with a super-majority. And that means Republicans would need a lot more seats than they have now: about 50 more seats in the House, for starters. So the chance of it happening that way are slim.

But anyway, the latter of the two seems more likely, were it to happen.

We want to take a second to point out a huge irony here. Many of the people who are most gung-ho about redoing the Constitution at the same time want “originalist” judges, precisely because of their inflexibility on interpreting the Constitution as it’s currently written. (Of course they might argue they are being completely consistent: originalists would not argue with changing the Constitution if it’s done using the precise steps set out in Article Five, which we’ve attached here.)

So what precisely do they want? Different things. But they all boil down to one thing, really.

Charles Koch wants to get a balanced budget amendment out of it. And Koch would like to specify that’s the only order of business, so it doesn’t degenerate into a free-for-all. But even just a balanced budget amendment would be bad enough because it would almost certainly guarantee an end to Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Since no way will military spending be cut. And it’d have to come from somewhere. And in our opinion it’s a foolish idea because the government should have the ability to borrow and spend during times of economic duress when tax revenues would also plunge, because that’s absolutely the worst time to have an amendment that forces a cutback in spending. And the government will never be disciplined enough to run a surplus when the economy is booming and revenues are up. Just like right now when Republicans decided to give corporations and rich people giant tax breaks and instead of running a surplus, and are now seeing corporate tax revenues below Recession-levels.

So even though Koch and Trump have this little simmering feud going on, it’s important to remember Koch is still not a “good guy”. Although as we’ve said before, he does have a completely consistent philosophy, unlike Trump’s near-completely improvisational approach to governing.

But what may be most important is to look at what some of the individual states want that have signed on to the Convention idea:

  • One big idea that gets bandied about every time this topic comes up: removal of birthright citizenship from the Constitution. So you wouldn’t become a U.S. citizen just by virtue of being born here.

What do those and other things being discussed have in common? They all serve to prevent diverse, mostly urban areas with high population growth from growing too much political muscle, while preserving the disproportionate political strength of less populated, less diverse states.

After all, you don’t hear anybody at the forefront of the Constitutional Convention effort saying they want to take one Senator away from Wyoming, for instance, since California has 80X the population, yet they are both equally represented in the Senate.

Written by

Peabody award winning journalist. Streaming media pioneer. Played @ CBGB back in the day. Editor-In-Chief "The Chaos Report"

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store