Last week was certainly historic. In what sense depends upon your worldview. For those of us who believe in federalism, dual-sovereignty, and the rule of law, last week was a disaster that irreparably damaged our republic.
Forget about the issues. These rulings weren’t about Obamacare or gay marriage so much as whether a majority of nine people on a national ruling council can write law for 320 million Americans. Apparently, they can.
What recourse remains? Some have advocated taking our republic back to the drawing board:
A constitutional recourse to judicial tyranny is gaining momentum around the country. A Convention of States, called under Article V of the Constitution, can impose constitutional limits on the federal government’s power — limits that will ensure an end to the overreach we witnessed last week.
However, others warn that a Convention of States could just as easily be used to expand government power. Phyllis Schlafly writes:
Any new constitutional convention, called as allowed by Article V, would surely attract and include political activists with motives and goals diametrically different from those of [the political Right].
[Justice John Paul] Stevens’ most dangerous suggestion is to gut the Second Amendment. Stevens wants to reverse the Supreme Court decision that upheld our right to keep a gun at home for self-protection…
If Congress acquiesces in the states’ petitions to call an Article V convention, you can bet that rewriting the Second Amendment to allow gun control and to forbid private ownership of guns will be a top priority of many delegates. Would they succeed?
The problem with rewriting the Constitution today is that any new document or amendment would be the product of the same culture which has birthed modern tyrannies. A Convention of States called today would not boast attendance from men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It would instead host delegates committed to securing “rights” to stuff, further enslaving us one to another.
Besides, in a world where our Supreme Court can literally re-write laws, what makes us think new law will help? Our problem is cultural, not statutory.