Meckler lies when he claims Scalia supported Article V

By Rasputin

H/t The New American 

A friend of Rasputin’s received an email from the Convention of States a few days ago, claiming “new documents” were uncovered in which deceased Justice Antonin Scalia supported an Article V Convention of States. How convenient. Since the Justice is not with us anymore, he can’t refute it. But of course there’s more to this story.

Below is an excerpt from the email. The link to the entire email is here. 

Convention of States Scalia

But notice the date of this. 1979. When Scalia was still a professor and not yet a SCOTUS justice. The New American gives us Scalia’s full quote:

So, it really comes down to whether we think a constitutional convention is necessary. I think it is necessary for some purposes, and I am willing to accept what seems to me a minimal risk of intemperate action. The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one. [Emphahsis added.]

Now fast forward to 2014 when Scalia had been a Justice for almost 30 years. Here is a forum from The Kalb Report including Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. They speak mostly about the 1st Amendment and how it relates to Freedom of the Press. But then the audience question and answer period comes. Take a listen beginning at the 1:05 mark about what a more seasoned Scalia says are his views about a Constitutional Convention:

Here is what the Justice had to say this time:

I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that? But, if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, I think the only provision I would amend is the Amendment Provision. I figured out, at one time, what percentage of the populace could prevent an Amendment to the Constitution. And, if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, I think something less than two percent of the people can prevent a Constitutional Amendment. It ought to be hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard. [Emphasis added.]

And for all those Convention of Staters, who would like you to believe it would NOT be a “con-con” Black’s Law differs when referring to Article V:

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added.]

Even new-supporter Texas Governor Greg Abbott refers to Article V as a “constitutional convention.” Page 67 of his 92 page document:

Abbot document on con con page 67

Even Supreme Court Justices can change their minds after years of experience. But of course, Meckler, Farris and his minions hope none of their supporters will hear the rest of the story.



Seems demagoguery still reigns over at Con of States, Raz. That will burn some whiskers.


Amazing, The hubris Meckler et al have, thinking none of the "little people" would find this out. They took this right out of the Democrats playbook. But wait! A lot of Dems want this too.

Rasputin1869 moderator

LadyImpactOhio it wouldn't be too far-fetched to think Lessig knew about Scalia's stance in 1979. And CoS was waiting for the right moment to use it. As you say, they didn't count on anyone finding out about his about face years later.