By the Editorial Board, cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer
March 01, 2025
The Ohio GOP appears to be lining up behind the idea of a constitutional convention, with resolutions introduced in both the Ohio House and Senate. No more birthright citizenship, anyone?
But a new constitutional amendment is also a goal progressives have long pushed to bar or limit corporate personhood rights and nullify the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling that opened the spigot to corporate money in politics.
Despite attempts over the years to call a Convention of the States, including via Ohio resolutions, the required two-thirds of states agreeing on the issue or issues prompting the convention has never been achieved, notes cleveland.com’s Jeremy Pelzer. Constitutional amendments can also be proposed by Congress via a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
Other issues could emerge in a new constitutional convention, however, including, as Pelzer noted, a possible amendment limiting the U.S. Supreme Court to its current nine justices, or one restricting early voting. Any proposed changes to the Constitution would, however, have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
So is a new constitutional convention a good idea to tackle questions that have emerged since 1787’s first (and, so far, only) constitutional convention, or a recipe for trouble, expense and gridlock? The Editorial Board Roundtable offers its thoughts.
Leila Atassi, manager public interest and advocacy:
A constitutional convention in today’s political climate would be a disaster. With Trump loyalists dominating the GOP, there’s no telling what fundamental rights could be stripped away — birthright citizenship, voting access, even judicial independence. Progressives might hope for campaign finance reform, but an open convention risks chaos, extremism, and deepening divisions. The Constitution isn’t perfect, but this is a dangerous gamble.
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
Calling a constitutional convention is a ridiculous — and irresponsible — idea. All manner of bizarre proposals would undoubtedly emerge and further roil American politics, already tempestuous. The Founders, in Philadelphia more than 200 years ago, crafted a durable document that has in the main (but for Prohibition) been reasonably amended issue by issue. We already have one free-for-all: Congress. We don’t need another.
Ted Diadiun, columnist:
Calling a constitutional convention would be about the worst idea in the history of this country. One that would have the potential of blowing up in the faces of those who support it, and rending the fabric of the most thoughtful, logical, most valuable document in human history. Anyone who would support this idea should be directed back for another try at civics class.
Eric Foster, columnist:
I’m not sure how exactly to describe the thought that bipartisan support could be mustered for a constitutional convention, followed by bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment. Fantastical? Hopeful? Arrogant? Delusional? Twenty-eight states — more than half — are controlled by partisan supermajorities, meaning that working across the aisle is a foreign concept to those legislators. You don’t suddenly acquire that skill at a constitutional convention.
Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:
Our nation has never been more polarized, making it the worst possible time to call a convention. The Ohio resolutions’ three discussion topics are overly broad and highly subjective: term limits; fiscal restraint; and limiting the power of government. This allows convention delegates to interpret them however they wish and do real damage to the Constitution. Will 38 states agree to ratify? I don’t think so.
Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:
If you value your freedom, now is not the time for a constitutional convention. With our country so divided and many of our elected officials disregarding constitutional rights, this is a risky move. The consequences could be serious and negatively impact many of us for years to come.
Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:
The Constitution provides the framework for our government and safeguards our most precious rights. The wise and prescient Founding Fathers set a high bar for amending this sacred document. They knew that foundational change is rarely necessary and potentially destabilizing. Readily adaptable legislative action is almost always the better governance tool. Today, neither Democrats nor Republicans are raising concerns that merit amending the Constitution.
Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director:
Besides being a politically pointless (and needlessly expensive) exercise, since gridlock is likely to be the ultimate outcome, calling a constitutional convention to fix things that either don’t need fixing or can be fixed through legislation would needlessly inflame our nation’s already dangerously partisan divide.