Blue Energy Field 32, original art
Delegates to the first federal convention recognized America needed more powerful institutions, but also that power can be abused. So they added, in the final days and unanimously, a convention clause, allowing state delegations to formally discuss/propose amendments aimed at abuse of power. We wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution without it.
Two-thirds of the states cast applications and once called, the convention deliberates ideas for change. Whatever they are, three-fourths of the states decide if any are to be ratified (75%+ approval is a political principle, the proposal must have broad/overwhelming support to become law [all one side of the political spectrum, plus at least half the other]). In the federal convention process state delegations each have one vote, so smaller states have as much say as large states.
Americans know government isn’t working well, yet the reason for hesitation is uncertainty sown by anti-convention propaganda from special interests/fringe groups, both left and right. The claims are we don’t know how a convention would work, that it might exceed its authority or be overtaken, and the judiciary wouldn’t protect the process because amendatory issues are “non-justiciable.” These claims are false. The courts have decided amendment process cases, imposing uniform law, the primary being the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment: www.foavc.org/...
A convention is not a concept, it’s a process and is perfectly understandable with checks and balances built in; it’s just a matter of a tipping-point of Americans saying yes, it’s time to dust off the Constitution and take it for a spin, i.e. have a shared moment nationally, based on building consensus mathematically.
Because the only issue the left and right agree on today is private money in public government, electoral reform is all we’ll get, and happily, it’s all we need.