Two of California’s last three governors have wanted to help organize and promote constitutional conventions, either on the state or federal level. They’ve both been dangerously wrong about this. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted only a state convention, aiming to take some of the clumsin ess out of California’s governing documents, which changes as often as every two years if voters pass ballot initiatives. But current Gov. Gavin Newsom is more ambitious, seeking the first national constitutional convention since 1787, even before George Washington was elected president. Newsom thinks he can confine such a convention to one issue: gun control. Ironically, these seemingly simple calls from a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat put them both in the camp of the far-right Republicans of the Convention of States organization, which has been seeking a national constitutional revision meeting for years. So far, the COS effort has garnered support from more than half the 34 states needed to call a convention. Like Newsom and Schwarzenegger, COS claims its convention could be confined to its narrow goals, which include imposition of severe spending restraints on Congress, along with term limits for senators and Congress members and a few other officials. (Presidents are already limited to two terms by the existing Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.) And there’s the problem: Because there’s never been a second constitutional convention, no one knows if such a gathering’s activity can be confined to one or two subjects, or whether everything would become fair game. The First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech and freedom of religion, might disappear. So might the Second Amendment’s guarantees of gun rights. Or the 14th Amendment guarantees of due process in all criminal proceedings. And on and on. In short, a constitutional convention would be a Pandora’s Box and no one knows what institution might supervise or limit its scope. For just one example, since the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as one of today’s major authorities, why would anyone believe that court’s justices might have jurisdiction over the doings of a constitutional revision convention that might potentially change or eliminate the court itself? That’s why San Francisco’s ultra-leftist Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener wants the Legislature this year to revoke its approval of a resolution calling for a convention to deal with gun control. Wiener, who has been wrong about many things including reshaping California housing to make it far more dense than before, is right about this. There’s even the possibility that California’s call for a gun control confab could be added to the COS efforts for a convention dealing with vastly different issues. No one knows. Said Wiener, “There is no way I want California to accidentally help these extremists trigger a constitutional convention where they (might) rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth.” Wiener’s fears are becoming more common, as states like Illinois and New Jersey, which previously had open calls for a constitutional convention, have rescinded their prior actions. Any that are not rescinded remain valid indefinitely and could be used by COS or anyone else wanting to call a convention, whatever their motives. Related Articles Opinion Columnists | Can Trump secure a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war? Opinion Columnists | Republicans may regret undermining judicial independence Opinion Columnists | Invest in education, not the Department of Education Opinion Columnists | Gavin Newsom and Steve Bannon held a competition to see who can articulate less Opinion Columnists | LA Mayor Karen Bass needs to go. But who’s the right person for the job? No doubt a constitutional convention, whether at the state or federal level, would be a delight for people who like to tinker with or brainstorm about government structure. But it also could turn into a nightmare for those who treasure civil liberties and protection against the tyranny of the majority when it comes to things like taxation. The fact is, no one even knows how delegates to such a convention might be chosen, or who would be eligible to serve. The current state and federal constitutions indicate only they must represent different areas and states in proportion to their population. Whether they would be elected or appointed by current officeholders is an open question. For sure, there are no guarantees of which groups would be represented and which might not. The bottom line: It’s best not to confront questions like this at all, since the lack of existing rules could mean that decisions would be made by the loudest among us, rather than the wisest. So why open this Pandora’s box at all? Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. ...read more read less