Behind the Headlines Jewish Groups in Forefront Against a Constitutional Convention

Jewish organizations on the national, state and local level have been in the forefront of the opposition to the efforts to force Congress to call a convention to amend the United States Constitution.

Thirty-one state legislatures have adopted bills calling on Congress to set up a convention to adopt a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Only three more states have to pass such a bill to force Congress to act.

Earlier this year this was thought to be a foregone conclusion after Alaska became the 31st state to adopt the necessary legislation. But now the drive seems stalled, partly because of the informational program by Jewish groups and others.

“We regard a constitutional convention as a potential danger.” Albert Chernin, executive vice chairman of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC) told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He noted that there has been no precedent for a constitutional convention since the original convention in 1787 which was called to amend the Articles of Confederation and ended up drafting a new Constitution for the U.S.

SOME OF THE FEARS EXPRESSED

While the convention would be called to deal with the specific issue of the balanced budget, there is no guarantee that it could not go beyond its mandate to other parts of the Constitution. This was the fear expressed by David Brody, Washington representative of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and other Jewish spokesmen with whom the JTA discussed the issue.

A constitutional convention would be “open ended no matter how it is organized,” said Hyman Bookbinder, the American Jewish Committee’s representative in Washington. He said this was not the way to deal with the problem of balancing the budget.

Marc Pearl, Washington representative of the American Jewish Congress, voiced the fear, which was echoed by the others that the convention could end up tampering with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

In particular, David Goldstein, executive director of the Jewish Community Council of Greater Kansas City, expressed concern for the safety of the First Amendment which guarantees not only freedom or speech and assembly but also separation of church and state. If this is changed “we are ov tsoris,” he said.

Goldstein has been on the front line of the battle because Missouri is considered to be the pivotal state this year. The Missouri Senate adopted a bill calling for a constitutional convention by a 2-1 margin, but it has been bottled up in the House where it had been expected to sail through.

Jewish representatives testified against the bill and members of the various local Jewish groups have written letters and conducted other informational campaigns. Goldstein added that “we helped interpret” the issue to the local newspapers.

The organized Jewish community has been closely involved in the issue since the 1979-80 NJCRAC Joint Program recommended that Jewish groups join broad-based coalitions to “vigorously oppose” the constitutional convention. “We recommend that Jewish community relations agencies initiate and participate in educational campaigns to alert the Jewish community and the general public to the dangers of a constitutional convention and they join in broad-based coalitions to vigorously oppose a constitutional convention,” the joint program plan said.

The NJCRAC issued a strong warning about the move a convention last August, end during a meeting of its Task Force on Domestic Concerns in Washington March 10 it noted it was “deeply concerned by reports of heightened activity” in the drive for a constitutional convention.

The B’nai B’rith Women at its recent convention here adopted a resolution opposing the convention. The newly formed Rooul Wallenberg chapter of the AJCongress here has been monitoring the states that have and have not adopted legislation. All national agencies in the NJCRAC and the local community relations councils have been working on the issue.

While a constitutional convention to deal with the budget has gotten the furthest there are also efforts to have constitutional conventions on abortion and busing.

LEGAL CHALLENGES POSSIBLE

The AJCongress’ Pearl pointed out that the issue is one that will be alive for a long time. He noted that the drive for a constitutional amendment raises many questions even if it gets the necessary 34 states.

He noted that many of the bills adopted in the various states are worded differently and this could bring about legal challenges that could last for years. There is also the question of how delegates to a convention be selected, appointed or elected and by whom, he said.

Pearl views the entire effort as an attempt by the New Right to “foist” their entire agenda on the American people. Jewish organizations have been alerted to the realization that some 30 bills have been submitted in Congress to restrict the Supreme Court and lower federal courts from hearing cases involving such issues as school prayer, school desegregation and abortion.

Meanwhile, the drive for a constitutional convention may be halted by the Reagan Administration’s decision to back a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. President Reagan, in his televised speech on the budget last week, gave his personal endorsement to such an amendment. This could pass.

Pearl noted that many of the conservative Senators and Representatives were elected in 1980 by promising a balanced budget, but then voted for the Reagan Administration budget which allows a deficit.

Many observers believe that such an amendment, while perhaps popular with voters would not mean much since there would always be a loophole that Congress could adopt a budget showing a deficit in the national interest, something which it does now every year. Pearl said there is no way a present to balance the budget. He noted that 45 percent of the budget includes mandated programs that must be funded annually.

While many Jewish organizations are expected to oppose the various constitutional amendments being offered, they do not view them as dangerous as they view a constitutional convention.