CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 18, 2023, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“THE BIG FLAWS IN NEWSOM’S 28TH
AMENDMENT PLAN”
The weaknesses in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s
proposal for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution do not lie
with the gun controls he seeks to win via this long, convoluted route.
Rather, it’s the rest of the process
that’s a potential killer – not of people, but of the basic rights guaranteed
by the Bill of Rights contained in that Constitution.
Newsom, realizing it is unlikely almost
to the point of impossibility, has pretty much abandoned the route by which
every constitutional amendment of the last 200 years worked its way into
America’s primary governing document.
That has been via Congress proposing
amendments that were then approved by legislatures in three-fourths of the
states, a number now standing at 38.
Because Congress and many legislatures
labor under the strong influence of the National Rifle Assn. and other
dedicated gun control foes, Newsom knows no firearms amendment proposed in the
normal manner stands much chance of passage.
If he tries to follow the usual path,
Newsom will be thwarted in raising the federal minimum age to purchase a gun
from 18 to 21, he will win no universal background checks to prevent dangerous
individuals getting guns and there will be no ban on sale of military-style
assault weapons.
That leaves one other venue for Newsom
to try – a constitutional convention. There have been none of those since 1787.
Here’s the rub: Newsom was not the first
to think of using this tactic to further goals he believes essential to
America’s well-being. Another movement has been in the field for fully 10 years
trying to get approval for a second constitutional convention from the required
two-thirds of states (now 34).
That group calls itself Convention of
States Action (COS). It has won approvals from 19 legislatures, just 15 shy of
its goal. COS says its convention would be “restricted to proposing amendments
that will impose fiscal restraint on government, limit its powers and
jurisdiction and impose term limits on federal officials and members of
Congress…” and more.
But the existing Constitution does not
prohibit such a convention from delving into any other subjects it likes, no
matter what the COS resolution passed by
many states may say. Because COS is the handiwork of ultra-conservative
activists, fears abound that such a convention could bring amendments calling
for a national ban on abortions, an end to free speech and/or freedom of
religion and an end to birthright citizenship, among other items.
Into this morass steps Newsom. So far,
liberal-led state legislatures have resisted approving COS resolutions. But what
if some now were to back Newsom’s proposal and approve a convention supposedly
limited to gun control issues?
No one knows if the legislative votes
for a constitutional convention would be combined, even if they carry very
different putative restrictions on what a convention could do. No one knows
because nothing like this has happened before.
Isn’t a vote for a convention a vote for
a convention, no matter what restrictions are listed, since the current
Constitution does not limit what any convention could take up?
What is known is that at any such
convention, voting would be done by state, not by counts of delegate
preferences. In short, tiny Wyoming, with about the same population as the
combination of Long Beach and Torrance, just two of the 88 cities in Los
Angeles County, would have as loud a voice as California or Texas. Talk about
the tail wagging the dog!
And the Constitution sets no time limits
on how long any proposed amendment stays in consideration. The last amendment
added, the 27th, passed in 1992, about 200 years after it was first
proposed. That one forbids members of Congress who approve raises for
themselves to collect the money until after the next election.
In short, the big flaws in Newsom’s plan
for a 28th Amendment are the fact it would not get through Congress
and that it could facilitate a hyper-destructive and divisive constitutional
convention.
Far better for the governor – if he’s
really interested in limiting firearm access and not merely strengthening his
national profile – to campaign for gun controls in individual states, rather
than seeking a national solution. Otherwise, he could be opening a completely
unprecedented Pandora’s Box.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book,
"The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the
Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover
fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment