Difference between revisions of "Warren Burger letter 1988"
(Created page with "<center>Supreme Court of the United States</center> <center>Washington, D.C. 20543</center> <center>June 22, 1983</center> Chambers of Chief Justice Burger Retired Dear P...") |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly | Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly | ||
| − | 68 Fairmont | + | <br>68 Fairmont |
| − | Alton, IL 62002 | + | <br>Alton, IL 62002 |
| − | + | ||
[[category:ConCon]] | [[category:ConCon]] | ||
Revision as of 00:24, 26 December 2016
Chambers of Chief Justice Burger Retired
Dear Phyllis:
I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly
68 Fairmont
Alton, IL 62002
