Objections to Newsom's 28th Amendment are off the mark

Joe Mathews
·3 min read
1.6k
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Gavin Newsom’s new campaign for a 28th Amendment is the most important political idea in the country today.

But you wouldn’t know that from reading media reports following the California governor’s proposal to enshrine four popular gun control measures in a new federal constitutional amendment.

Instead, political opponents dismissed Newsom’s proposal in several ways — as a distraction from his job, as a stunt in his rhetorical war with red states, and as crazy because it’s so hard to change the constitution.

In truth, such objections are far crazier than Newsom’s amendment. The governor is doing his job, with urgency — by taking on both violence and a U.S. constitution that limits his ability to keep Californians safe.

It’s hard to think of a policy this country needs more than constitutional controls on firearms. The United States is awash in guns — Americans own nearly half of the 800 million civilian-held guns on earth. The U.S. has a gun homicide rate more than 25 times that of other high-income countries, and a gun suicide rate more than 10 times higher. And things are getting worse — gun violence has become the No. 1 cause of death for American children.

Instead of trying to reverse this epidemic, the U.S. government is making it worse, by reducing regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court has reinterpreted the constitution to throw out gun control laws in cities and states.

One of those states is California, which has had lower rates of gun violence than more pro-gun states thanks to laws under attack, like a 10-day wait on most firearm purchases.

In this context, the Newsom Amendment is, if anything, too modest. Rather than the repeal of the Second Amendment, the governor’s measure is limited to four politically popular measures that should reduce gun violence:

What is bold about the amendment is the method Newsom is advocating for its passage: using a provision in Article V of the constitution that allows states to call a constitutional convention. Thirty-four states must support such a convention in order for it to be convened.

The U.S. has never had an Article V convention before, and that poses uncertainty. Newsom will seek to limit the convention to the question of guns, but once a convention is in session, delegates might propose to alter the constitution in other ways.

This possibility may frighten Americans, who are deeply attached to their constitution. But the county’s political meltdown suggests we should be afraid of the status quo, rather than attached to it. How much violence must we suffer, how many rights can the Supreme Court take away, before we fight back constitutionally?

Indeed, it’s hard to think of a republican constitution on earth more in need of updating than that of the United States. Newer, more democratic constitutions govern other rich countries, which are healthier and considerably less violent than America.

Constitutional change also would be good for California, whose power is diminished by a document conceived 60 years before our statehood. Newsom, in pursuing a 28th Amendment, is recognizing this reality. The second most powerful elected official in the country is opening the door to a new federal constitution.

The big question now is how hard Newsom will push for an idea that is far more consequential than anything else he is doing. One test of the governor’s intent is whether he will refuse to endorse Democrats who don’t join the movement for the 28th Amendment, including Joe Biden who is likely to resist the divisive proposal.

If the president won’t get on board, there is another way for Newsom to demonstrate his seriousness about the amendment. He could challenge Biden for the presidency next year.

Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square.

This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Objections to Newsom's 28th Amendment are off the mark