Here is a summary of the positions taken by the panelists:
( All quoted from the seed. )
For The Motion
- The framers of the Constitution put a system in place to address an ineffective or failed Congress. By circumventing Congress, an Article V convention would empower states to address issues national legislators will not.
- In an era of unprecedented expansion of federal government through executive orders and wide-reaching Supreme Court decisions, an Article V convention would allow states to propose and ratify amendments that limit federal overreach.
- The threat of a “runaway” convention is unsubstantiated. Because 38 states would be required to ratify any proposed amendment, any changes to the Constitution would reflect the will of the majority of Americans.
Against The Motion
- Article V gives us very little guidance on how a convention would actually work. With such an ill-defined process, whatever the end-result, the legitimacy of the Constitution will be called into question.
- A convention to amend the Constitution would give special interest groups unprecedented opportunity to lobby delegates for their causes, allowing wealthy donors and corporations direct access to the amendment process.
- Opponents say the only precedent we have to work with is the convention of 1787--which scrapped the Articles of Confederation. With no way to enforce limits on the proceedings, sweeping changes could be made. Are we ready to imperil fundamentals of the Constitution, particularly in our current and deeply partisan political climate?