Last updated on 2020-01-16
Aside from the guarantee of equal citizenship and bodily autonomy it grants to women, the Constitution is fine the way it is, says Linda Schauer in a letter to the editor of my local paper. The director of the Concerned Women for America of South Dakota doesn’t want any Convention of the States mucking it up:
Proponents of an Article V convention claim that our government is so out-of-control that we need to “do something,” and they regard Article V as the cure-all. However, simply reading the Constitution, one can see that the powers of our elected officials for fiscal restraint, limited control and limited jurisdiction are clearly enumerated. The Constitution is not the problem. Officials simply need to obey their oath to support and defend the Constitution as written.
Repeal of the Second Amendment and the Electoral College have been proposed. Obviously, it is dangerous and risky to open our Constitution to the mischief forewarned by our Founders. Former Justice Scalia called it a “horrible idea” [Linda Schauer, letter to the editor, Aberdeen American News, 2018.12.27].
I welcome Schauer’s assistance in jamming the efforts of other arch-conservatives and corporate fascists to use Article V to wreck the Constitution. But note how Schauer has to do some double-talk here, invoking a Constitutional originalist to argue against our sacredly capitalized Founders’ original idea. Schauer says sure, the Founders wrote Article V, but they didn’t really like it:
The Convention of States and other like-minded groups certainly could undermine the Constitution by exercising Article V. Our Founders recommended the Article V process to correct potential “errors” in the Constitution, but warned that a constitutional convention would be “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our country [Schauer, 2018.12.27].
Minor correction: one Founder, James Madison, offered that warning. Madison said “might have” before the text Schauer quotes, not the stronger “would be” she appends. Madison was also speaking very specifically to the temper of the new United States and global affairs in November 1788:
You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York…. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. 4. It is not unworthy of consideration that the prospect of a second Convention would be viewed by all Europe as a dark and threatening Cloud hanging over the Constitution just established, and perhaps over the Union itself; and wd. therefore suspend at least the advantages this great event has promised us on that side. It is a well known fact that this event has filled that quarter of the Globe with equal wonder and veneration, that its influence is already secretly but powerfully working in favor of liberty in France, and it is fairly to be inferred that the final event there may be materially affected by the prospect of things here. We are not sufficiently sensible of the importance of the example which this Country may give to the world; nor sufficiently attentive to the advantages we may reap from the late reform, if we avoid bringg. it into danger. The last loan in Holland and that alone, saved the U. S. from Bankruptcy in Europe; and that loan was obtained from a belief that the Constitution then depending wd. be certainly speedily, quietly, and finally established, & by that means put America into a permanent capacity to discharge with honor & punctuality all her engagements [emphasis mine; James Madison, letter to George Lee Turberville, 1788.11.02].
By invoking Madison in false plurality, Schauer is invoking an argument specific to conditions 230 years ago. But hey: we all knew anti-abortion radicals and Trumpists like Schauer are stuck in the past.
Opposition to the Article V convention (it used to be called the “ConCon”) has been a long standing position of the Concerned Women of America. I remember this issue coming up several times back in my days in Pierre, and CWA was always there to bat it down. It is one position of theirs that I agree with. I want to see the Electoral College abolished. It’s a relic of our slavery days and should be gone from our system of government. That can be done by Constitutional amendment. There is no need for a ConCon.
It appears Schauer is conflating two separate provisions in Article V – a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution versus amending it. As Donald pointed out, an amendment is all that is needed to make changes on particular matters.
That is what is so frustrating about folks like Stace Nelson who have sworn to uphold the Constitution. When the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution in manner they object to, such as finding a right of privacy that restricts the government from legislating to control our reproduction and family planning decisions, Nelson and such folks openly disrespect our Constitution. Instead of proposing constitutional amendments to take away our right of privacy, they introduce legislation intended to accomplish that goal indirectly, knowing full well that such legislation conflicts with, and is designed to undermine, these settled constitutional rights, contrary to the oath of office, but in the hope that the SCOTUS might just reverse prior rulings.
Private folks who have not sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution certainly have the right to use litigation challenging laws consistent with the Constitution to ask the SCOTUS to change its former interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution. But folks who have been elected to public office and have sworn an oath to support the Constitution, and have been granted the sacred power to enact laws consistent with that oath, stand on different footing. They have not been authorized nor tasked with interpreting the Constitution, they have promised to support it. Proposing legislation intended to undermine or weaken any constitutional provision is an open violation of their sworn oath.
As for changing the 2nd Amendment, at least most proposed limiting legislation is honestly designed to be consistent with what the SCOTUS has ruled to be permissible. I have not seen public officials propose legislation that is designed to challenge any part of the SCOTUS rulings in Heller, et al.
And I have seen no proposed legislation to change the electoral college. Instead, people who want to change this argue for a constitutional amendment. Thus, instead of trying to change it with unconstitutional legislation, they respect the language of Article V, just as earlier generations (who were apparently much more faithful of their oath of office than too many of our current elected officials) did by advocating for the adoption of the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th.
~ Madison said “might have” before text Schauer quotes, not the stronger “would be” she appends.
~ By invoking Madison in false plurality.
Cory hints and I’ll state. Linda Schauer, The director of the Concerned Women for America of South Dakota, is a misdirecting, self serving, liar.
CWA represents a minority of women in this nation and in SD. Twice South Dakotans have referred and voted down laws restricting the rights of women. National polling shows the opposition to such laws clearly outweighs the support.
CWA is an organization of women coopted by the right and millennia of male dominance. Stockholm Syndrome, is the psychological term for their extreme identification with dominant males of their species.
In addition to an amendment ending the electoral college, I’d also like to see amendments ending bribing of politicians via “campaign donations”, any form of gerrymandering and the ERA amendment.