The well measured words of this distinguished jurist, are excerpted below to entice you to read the entire sub-article, and then proceed to the entire discussion.
In 1979, Scalia was a Professor - and he answers some of the debate already presented by others on this board.
=============
Antonin Scalia - 1979 - On Convention of the States
Excerpts from American Enterprise Institute’s Panel Discussion on Article V with Panelist Antonin Scalia
May 23, 1979
MR. DALY: All right. Professor Scalia, Richard Rovere in the New Yorker, suggested that the convention method of amendment might reinstate segregation and even slavery, throw out much or all of the Bill of Rights, eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, reverse any Supreme Court decision the members didn't like, and perhaps for good measure, eliminate the Supreme Court, itself. [Laughter.] Now, what would you anticipate from an unlimited convention?
ANTONIN SCALIA, professor of law, University of Chicago: I suppose it might even pass a bill of attainder to hang Richard Rovere. [Laughter.] All those things are possible, I suppose, just as it is possible that the Congress tomorrow might pass a law abolishing social security as of the next day, or eliminating Christmas. Such things are possible, remotely possible. I have no fear that such extreme proposals would come out of a constitutional convention.
...
The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government's own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
...
I have not proposed an open convention. Nobody in his right mind would propose it in preference to a convention limited to those provisions he wants changed .
...
There comes a point, however, at which one has to be willing to run the risk of an open convention to get the changes that are wanted. Essentially what I have said is that there is some risk of an open convention, even with respect to the limited proposal of financial responsibility at the federal level. I think that risk is worth taking. It is not much of a risk. Three-quarters of the states would have to ratify whatever came out of the convention; therefore, I don't worry about it too much.
...
In any case, I do not have any great fear of an open convention, since three-quarters of the states do have to ratify what comes out of it. The clucking that Richard Rovere and others do about it is simply an intentional attempt to create panic and to make the whole idea sound unthinkable. It is not unthinkable at all; it is entirely thinkable.
...
I listed first among the things that I would like to have considered the structural issues at the federal level. I do not have a lack of trust in the American people. I am the one here who is least terrified of a convention. We have come a long way. We have gotten over many problems. But the fact remains that a widespread and deep feeling of powerlessness in the country is apparent with respect to many issues, not just the budget issue. The people do not feel that their wishes are observed. They are heard but they are not heeded, particularly at the federal level. The Congress has come up with a lot of paliatives---the legislative veto, for example-which do not solve the problem at all .
The process should be used for some significant issue that concerns the American people, but which issue is chosen is relatively unimportant. I would not want a convention for some silly purpose, of course. But I think there are many serious purposes around, many matters that profoundly concern the American people and about which they do not now have a voice. I really want to see the process used responsibly on a serious issue so that the shibboleth-the Richard Rovere alarm about the end of the world--can be put to rest and we can learn how to use the process responsibly in the future.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
Original Article: A Constitutional Convention: How well would it work?
http://www.aei.org/events/a-constitutional-convention-how-well-would-it-work/
A Constitutional Convention: How Well Would It Work? an edited transcript of an AEI Public Policy Forum, brings together four distinÂguished scholars to discuss the prospects for the first federal constituÂtional convention in this country since the Constitution was drafted in 1787.
John Charles Daly, former ABC news chief, serves as the moderator of the panel, which consists of:
Paul Bator, professor of law at Harvard University
Walter Berns, resident scholar at theAmerican Enterprise InstiÂtute, and formerly professor of political science at the University of Toronto
Gerald Gunther, professor of law at Stanford University
Antonin Scalia, professor of law at the University of Chicago.
Download the PDF: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AEI-Forum_A-Constitutional-Convention-2.pdf
Also of interest - haven't reviewed it yet ... but probably will ...
http://www.aei.org/events/imperial-judiciary-fact-or-myth/
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 