Which way, America?

On Saturday, June 30, 1787, when tempers were rising, and compromises were not to be found, Gunning Bedford rose and confronted the delegates in Philadelphia's State House. He had enough of the talk about big states acting magnanimously toward little states like his Delaware.

"The larger states," he said in his commanding voice, "proceed as if our eyes were already perfectly blind." The big states said there would be no danger for the little states under their plan. Bedford disagreed.

"I do not, gentlemen, trust you," he said.

The untrustworthy "gentlemen" were George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and all of the big-state delegates at what we now call the Constitutional Convention. Their plan was to have both the upper and lower houses of their new government filled according to population size. There would be no equality among the states. Everything would be based on the number of people in each state.

Virginia had 11 times more people than Delaware. What say would Delaware have in this new government if Virginia had 11 representatives and senators for every one of Delaware's? There would be no more Delaware.

Bedford threatened the big states. The small states, he said, will bolt and align with foreign powers rather than submit to the big states.

The convention almost collapsed.

As wise politicians always do, the delegates put off a decision. Eventually they worked out a deal. Historians call it the Connecticut Compromise. The new government would have two houses. One, the House of Representatives, would be based on population. The other, the Senate, would be based on equality among the states. Each would have two senators.

The best of both worlds. At least until now.

Today's political battles are forcing many Americans to rethink what the Founding Fathers gave us. All those compromises back then, all those court decisions ever since are the problem. The Constitution's critics are growing in number. Fewer Americans, it seems, are happy with what we have.

Some think the Constitution itself is the problem. Others think it is either the Supreme Court or, more likely, Congress that is at fault.

The critics come from the political right and the left.

What unites them is a desire to change the Constitution.

And that's a problem.

Article V of the Constitution is the key to amending the document. Article V lays out the ways Congress can introduce amendments. It has been done successfully only 27 times since the Constitution was ratified.

An amendment is a hard thing to pull off. The Founders designed it that way. The idea is to give the Constitution some staying power and, therefore, considerable authority in our political system.

However, the Founders also did not entirely trust Congress to do the right thing. Therefore, they added a clause that gives the states the authority to call a constitutional convention.

That's right. Just like in 1787.

It has never happened. However, today these calls are coming from the political left and the political right. Liberals, or progressives, want a constitutional convention to undo the work of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. Their argument is that there is too much money in the political system. If money gives you influence in politics, then only those with money will have influence.

The issues are different on the political right. For example, the America Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, wants a convention to push through a balanced budget amendment. It claims that 24 of the needed 34 states have already called for a convention. An offshoot of ALEC is campaigning to enlist more states. The group wants amendments to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices as well as members of Congress, a limit on taxes and a limit on the power of the federal government. Of course, they get to decide on the limits.

Constitution reformers on the left want to lessen the influence of the states. Why they ask, should Wyoming have the same number of senators as California when California has 70 times more people? Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas is considered the leader of "the unofficial spokesman for the progressive critics of the Constitution." Levinson and the other progressive critics do not think the Constitution is democratic enough. The majority should rule in all cases. (There goes Delaware's equal status in the Senate.)

On the right, the most prominent spokesman is Mark Levin, author of the best-selling "The Liberty Amendments." He is not a majoritarian, he explains. He believes strongly in states' rights. For example, he wants to repeal the 17th Amendment. That amendment established the direct election of senators. Before the amendment was ratified, state legislatures selected senators. Levin wants to return the country to that practice. That way, he says, the states would have control of the Senate.

So can't we all come together and work it out?

No. We have to be realistic.

An Article V convention would be a disaster.

Why? Because there is no way of controlling it. The states would not be able to control their delegates. (They couldn't in 1787.) The states also would not be able to control the agenda. (They couldn't in 1787.)

The call for a convention under the Constitution (should I say "current constitution"?) requires two-thirds of the states to join. (That is 34 states today.) Ratification of whatever comes out f the convention would require three-quarters. (That is 38 today.)

Therefore, proponents say, we are safe. If the convention comes back with a radically different document, there is no way 38 states would agree to it. But who says the new document would require 38 states? Suppose it said ratification needed only a simple majority – 26. As some experts pointed out, you can line up the needed 26 states and still have only 18 percent of the nation's people represented.

Whatever came out of a new convention would lead to a political free-for-all. It would be a disaster.

I'm with Gunning Bedford.

To the convention proponents on the right and the left, I say:

"I do not, gentlemen, trust you."

John Sweeney is The News Journal's engagement editor. Reach him at jsweeney@delawareonline.com. Follow him on Twitter @sweeneyopinion.