I read it more as amend the constitution in an effort to SCOTUS-proof even the most reasonable gun control policies. The compromise down from this would probably be that local/state/federal can enact these policies without violating the 2nd.
OK, but amending the constitution is basically impossible, so this proposal seems more like virtue signalling than a realistic policy gambit. As such, there’s no “compromise down” because the other side of the compromise has no incentive to budge an inch. So why not shoot for the moon?
In a world where amending the constitution was possible, this might be a viable play. But in today’s climate you couldn’t get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree on changing a comma.
Has Newsom explained why he feels calling for a constitutional convention is the best route to seek this amendment rather than the traditional route through Congress and state ratification?
The temperance forces were a coalition of many groups. Some of them most definitely were stick-in-the-muds. Also anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-doing anything other than going to church on Sunday. And some, I assume, were good people, to quote a recent president.
I don’t want to redebate Prohibition. The problem is that there is nothing to be said about Newsom’s whatever it is. If no literal text exists we might as well be talking about hundred year old issues.
And characterizing the movement as a whole in such a narrow minded fashion is exactly the kind of ignorance this website is supposed to be dedicated to fighting.
There’s a way around the state legislatures, too. That is, the amendment can require the ratification be by state conventions. There’s only one amendment that’s had that requirement. Take a wild guess which one that was.
21st, the one that repealed Prohibition.
That’s a very odd way to say that your characterization was the historically wrong one. No stick-in-the muds? Seriously? That’s fighting ignorance?
Just as “coalition of many groups” is in no way a characterization of the “whole.”
Unfortunately, while Prohibition had some worthy elements - as I said - it was also driven by protestant evangelistic hatred of the Other. It’s perfectly logical to approve of the first while condemning the second. In fact, it’s morally necessary to do so.
I’m not sure what he’s actually said, but he’s clearly honest enough to understand that the plain text of the 2nd Amendment is a huge obstacle to gun control. The overwhelming majority of liberals just wave it away – “Oh, it doesn’t actually mean what it says.”
I fully agree with that. I’ve said before that the first step towards any meaningful gun control is this country would be the repeal of the Second Amendment.
However, I don’t feel that’s going to happen. Enacting an amendment is a very difficult job. Enacting a new amendment to overturn an existing amendment is more difficult. And the Second Amendment has strong and organized supporters who will defend it, which makes it probably the most difficult amendment to overturn. I don’t feel there’s an realistic chance of this proposed amendment being enacted.
I’ve seen at least one commentator refer to this proposal as a stunt. And while I agree with Newsom’s idea, I have to also agree with that commentator’s assessment. This is a stunt. I’m sure Newsom realizes that. This proposal isn’t about actually getting an amendment enacted; it’s intended to further some other political agenda.
All that said, I’m trying to figure out what that agenda is. And why pushing for state conventions rather than pushing Congress is part of it. One possibility is that Newsom is trying to portray himself as a Washington outsider. Another is that Newsom may feel that the state organizations established to push for these conventions may be the groundwork for state organizations to push for a presidential campaign.
You have something wrong here. To bypass Congress for an amendment would take a single national convention, not a lot of state conventions. The state convention thing is for ratifying the amendment.
You don’t want that! The last time they called a Constitutional Convention (to amend the Articles of Confederation), the delegates secretly agreed to throw the whole thing out.
You’re right, of course. (I’ve had a long day.)
What I should have asked was why Newsom is pushing for a constitutional convention rather than pushing for congressional action. But I think my speculations are still valid.
And yet they went and put a provision in the new Constitution to do it again.
I’m not sure that it’s any more complicated than that Congress is paralyzed on this issue and he sees a convention as potentially not paralyzed. The problem is that the two ways to get a convention are 1) Congress approves one by 2/3rds supermajority of both houses, or 2) a 2/3 supermajority of states call for one. If you can get the first, there’s no need for a convention. And there’s no way we’re ever going to get the second.
Only about 3% of all firearm homicides involve so called “Assault weapons” yet that is what everyone squawks about.
[url= What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. | Pew Research Center]
In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.
Perhaps it’s because those (including the fully automatic versions) are EXACTLY the type of arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. And before someone starts babbling about the militia clause you need to educate yourself about who the unorganized militia is. (Hint: look in the mirror.)
Nm dot dot dot
If you ask me, the “obvious” answer is, it’s the only way that it has even a remote chance of getting to the states for ratification. Newsom realizes there’s no way either 290 Representatives or 67 Senators, much less both of those, would agree to something like this.
I don’t feel this is a likely explanation. The only way such a constitutional convention is going to occur is if there is a widespread call for enacting this amendment. And if there was that level of support for this amendment throughout the country, it would already be reflected in Congress.
Repeal of the Second Amendment can’t be the first step. No constitutional amendment ever can be the first step to anything. To get an amendment, you need the support of a whole lot of people. Getting that support is the first step (and, probably, the second, third, and tenth steps).
Let’s call it the first legislative step.
Not even that. There’s lots that the legislature could do in pursuit of what I said, without falling into even the penumbras of the Second Amendment.