This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, March 2, 2011 - The standing-room-only crowd of Tea Party activists listened in rapt silence while two prominent local conservatives debated the best way to press for governmental change: election or constitutional convention?
At issue at Tuesday night's forum in Clayton was the push, nationally and in Missouri, for a constitutional amendment to allow states to repeal federal laws and mandates.
To skirt Congress, backers are trying to get approval of resolutions in 34 states -- including Missouri -- that call for a constitutional convention.
Under the resolution, the convention would be for "the limited purpose of a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures."
Dave Roland, a lawyer and co-founder of the Freedom Center of Missouri, supports the idea of a constitutional convention. Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly does not. Talk-show host and conservative activist Gina Loudon moderated the 90-minute discussion, which attracted 150 people.
Roland contended that such a convention might well be the only way to give the states a chance to block enforcement of federal laws they dislike. Such laws include the federal health-care changes approved by Congress last year.
Under the proposed amendment, 34 states -- a two-thirds majority -- could overrule federal laws and repeal them. To get the amendment in the Constitution, 38 states would need to approve it.
But Schlafly maintained that such a convention could easily run amuck, and that the election route -- which in 2010 allowed Republicans to take over the U.S. House -- was a safer way to go.
"Once they call a convention, anything can be brought up," she said. Schlafly noted that the Constitution allows Congress to set the rules for such a convention -- including who participates.
Schlafly predicted that such a convention wouldn't deal with just the repeal proposal. She asserted that other special-interest groups dealing with abortion, gun rights or environmental issues would likely bring up their proposed amendments. The result could be a plethora of proposed changes to the Constitution, some that conservatives might heartily oppose, she said.
Schlafly also had the crowd roaring as she told of instances during Republican state and national conventions where she has seen organized elements control the convention business.
"I can tell you, I have seen every crooked deal you could possibly think of,'' Schlafly said. "I have seen them violate the rules, turn off the voting machines, put delegations they don't like behind posts where nobody can see them."
Her point was that she feared the same antics would occur during a constitutional convention. Schlafly even predicted that President Barack Obama and his political allies might take over the convention and control what gets approved.
Schlafly said a better route for conservatives was to get active and seek election results in 2012 like they achieved in 2010.
Roland said he was aware of the risks, but that he believed a constitutional convention was still the best route to force change on Congress. He predicted that a convention would generate grassroots action by Tea Party activists and others.
At the moment, the chief legislative vehicle in Missouri for such a convention is HCR 9, which is before the state House. It has at least 20 co-sponsors.
