Can a Convention of the States Change a Constitutionally-Illiterate Population?

From the Thursday Morning Jolt…

A Flaw in Marco Rubio’s Call for a Convention of States

Marco Rubio’s calling for a convention of states to amend the Constitution:

As president, I will promote a convention of states to amend the Constitution and restore limited government.

The framers of our Constitution allowed for a constitutional convention because they knew our citizens were the ultimate defense against an overbearing federal government. They gave the American people, through their state representatives, the power to call a convention made up of at least 34 states, where delegates could then propose amendments that would require the support of 38 states to become law.

This method of amending our Constitution has become necessary today because of Washington’s refusal to place restrictions on itself. The amendment process must be approached with caution, which is why I believe the agenda should be limited to ideas that reduce the size and scope of the federal government, such as imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court and forcing fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget requirement. Limiting the agenda will prevent the convention from being overtaken by special interests.

This always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Maybe part of our current troubles stem from a lack of sufficient Constitutional measures against runaway government. But the bigger issue is an American populace that doesn’t know what’s in the Constitution, can’t be bothered to learn, and doesn’t particularly care. The problem isn’t really the words on the parchment; the problem is the people who are making the laws and the courts that interpret them. The even larger problem is the people who largely assent to that governance, concluding it doesn’t really affect them. IRS abuses? Eh, they didn’t come after me. Bureau of Land Management? It’s far away. Restrictive gun laws? Hey, I live in a safe neighborhood and work in a building with security. Somebody else will pay those high taxes; somebody else will worry about the national debt.

Back in June, Mark Levin contended it was impossible for a constitutional convention to end up adopting measures that would worsen our fight for limited government: “The idea that thirteen red-state legislatures (with just one house controlled by Republicans) would embrace the left’s radical agenda, should crazy amendments be proposed at a convention of the states, is absurd.” Doesn’t that also mean thirteen blue-state legislatures, with just one house controlled by Democrats, could block any proposed amendment detrimental to Democratic interests? In that same piece, Levin writes, “the situation today is that the federal government re-writes, modifies, usurps, defies, etc. the Constitution virtually at will. As such, the Constitution as written and intended is meaningless in many respects.” If that’s the case, how can we be certain the government wouldn’t just go back to ignoring the Constitution after the convention?

In other words, if the real problem is a largely Constitutionally-illiterate electorate… would a convention of the states solve it?