Robert Barnes wrote a piece for The Washington Post today about a debate at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention over calling a convention to amend the Constitution. The first "showcase panel" at the Convention, on "Enumerated Powers, the Tenth Amendment, and Limited Government," debated this issue (click here to see the video), with some saying that amendments were needed to keep the federal government from encroaching on state power and others arguing that the political process was the right domain in which to restrain the government.
Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen of St. Thomas Law School argued that Congress had overstepped its constitutional bounds to the extent that the only way to remedy its intrusion into the authority of the states was for the states to call a convention to amend the Constitution. Both he and former Texas solicitor general R. Ted Cruz called for such a convention as a real possibility in the aftermath of the last election.
Cruz argued that amendments produced by such a convention should include a balanced budget amendment, a supermajority requirement for raising taxes, and giving the President the line-item veto.
Also on the panel were Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, who both pushed back on the idea of such a convention. Tushnet argued that the concept of "amending the Constitution to preclude future democratic decision-making" was "a little puzzling," while Gerhardt asserted that these policy differences should be worked out in the political branches, not through the constitutional amendment process.
Click here to view this article on the source site »