Greg Abbott and a new constitutional convention

Kudos to Steve Griffin for his comment on Gov. Greg Abbott's call for a new constitutional convention.  I posted a comment for the Texas Tribune on Friday.  I hope that progressives do NOT simply denounce the very idea of a new constitutional convention, but instead take advantage of the conversation (or Pandora's box) opened by Gov. Abbott  to suggest other badly-needed changes to our out-of-date and dangerous Constitution.  I agree with Steve, incidentally, that Abbott is simply confused (shall we say) when he protests that he doesn't mean to imply that the Constitution is broken, that the problem is only dangerous progressives and courts that have left behind the sacred text.  That would have a scintilla of plausibility if the only thing he wanted to do was to overrule one or another decision that is part of the New Deal transformation, say.  But there is no plausible reading of the 1787 Constitution that would give states the right to overrule Supreme Court decisions or federal legislation.  And, for what it is worth, the version of the "Repeal Amendment" that Abbott advocates is the original version advocated by Randy Barnett and not the far more sensible alternative that he offered in his revised edition of Restoring the Lost Constitution.  To let 2/3 of the states override federal legislation would, for example, allow states with only around 35% of the population to invalidate legislation desired by a majority.  That's a terrible idea, just as the US Senate is a terrible idea (as Madison argued at the time).  But it's not terrible to allow a majority of the states with a majority of the population to repeal federal legislation. It might be a bad idea, but, at the very least, it's worth a genuine debate about why, exactly, we should place such power in such a patently unrepresentative body as the United States Congress, comprised largely of millionaires.  Incidentally, I think it genuinely interesting that Abbott's menu of changes doesn't include repealing the 17th Amendment, a cause of Rick Perry.  I'm opposed to repeal, but I think it is a fully sensible way for people who really like "constitutional federalism" to provide a way for state officials to play a direct role in hiring senators.  And, if one supports repeal, one should go a further step and advocate that senators be viewed as simply ambassadors from state governments, subject to recall whenever they violate the desires of the state legislature.   In any event, this inquiring mind is curious why Abbott didn't go after the 17th Amendment.  Did he decide that it was simply too radical to advocate disenfranchising the people and turning selection of senators back to highly partisan state legislators?

I'm also interested, incidentally, that Abbott's speech seems to have gotten no national press.  This may testify to a mixture of the opposition to a convention on the part of most "thoughtful people," including those who decide what to write about.  It may also, though, reflect the view that there is simply no genuine possibility of a new convention, so why bother covering the issue.  A final possibility is that Abbott is simply laying the basis for his 2020 run against President Hillary Clinton, establishing himself as the worthy successor to discredited and soon-to-be-discredited frothing Texans as former Gov. Rick Perry and Junior Senator Ted Cruz. 

UPDATE:  I think I clearly overspoke in saying that Abbott's speech got "no national press."  That's simply wrong.  I expected more coverage than it got in the Times, for example, and I over-generalized.  I think it will be interesting to see if anyone asks the remaining candidates--so long, Rand (which I regret) and Carly (which I certainly don't)--in the next GOP debate about Abbott's proposals.  And will any of them admit that the Constitution is not now and never has been "perfect" according to conservative standards?