Archive

ShareThis Page
About convention idea | TribLIVE.com
News

About convention idea

by LETTER TO THE EDITOR
| Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:55 p.m.

The “Sunday pops” item about Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal endorsing a constitutional convention stated that “once the constitutional convention genie is out of the bottle, those with less-than-conservative intentions could do grave damage to our national charter.” This is misleading on two points.

First, what Gov. Jindal and other past and current governors, senators and leading conservatives support is a convention of states for the purpose of proposing amendments — one of two paths to amending the Constitution provided by Article V. This is not a constitutional convention in scope or purpose.

Second, a convention of states is convened when two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures pass resolutions on an agreed topic or set of topics, and it is limited to considering amendments on these specified topics. The convention is controlled by the convening states in all regards and cannot become a so-called runaway convention.

Washington, D.C, is not going to reform itself. The convention of states process is the only constitutionally effective means available to do what is so essential for our nation — restoring robust federalism with genuine checks on the power of the federal government. Find out more at conventionofstates.com.

Spencer W. Allen

Pine

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.