Article V - The Opponents to Calling a Convention

And why they are wrong

In this part of my series about Article V, I will discuss some of the arguments against calling a Convention of States and how those arguments are overcome and addressed using simple but effective remedies.

Political opponents to an Article V Convention of States often write articles saying that the individuals calling for the convention want to rewrite the Constitution or that rewriting the Constitution can be done with Article V. They call this a “runaway convention” or a “Constitutional Convention" or “Con-Con” for short. Article V of the US Constitution has no provision that allows for the Constitution to be rewritten, so the words of these political opponents is simply untrue. This is fear mongering fake news propaganda. Supporters of the Convention of States Project want to call a convention to propose amendments to the constitution - amendments which then must be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Ratification is itself a mechanical safeguard against the “Con-Con.”. They have no desire to rewrite our Constitution.

Let's say however, that delegates from certain state(s) at the convention attempt to propose language that rewrites the U.S. Constitution. What then? Let's first briefly discuss what happens at conventions. Conventions must first be called by some authority or group of individuals at a location and at a specific date and time. The delegates attending the convention are representatives who have the authority to act on behalf of those being represented. In the case of Article V, Congress calls the convention upon receipt of the applications of 2/3 of the states and the State Legislatures appoint and send delegates to the convention. After all of the delegates arrive at the convention, they elect a chairman and rules for order are established. This is not unlike the state conventions that preceded the writing of state constitutions or applications from territories to join the United States - none of which were “runaway conventions.”

So what if a delegate or group of delegates proposes language to rewrite the Constitution? If the chairman were to actually allow a vote to allow the language to be proposed, it would be proposed and then defeated through the process of debate and voting by the other delegates.

Now, I know what you're thinking. How could I be so naive, right? Well there's two other things I haven't mentioned. The Convention of States Project has a three subject application that each state must pass in order to call a convention. Don't forget that a minimum of 34 states have to vote and approve this application. This three subject application must be agreed upon by all the participating states prior to the convention and it must be adhered to during the convention. What are the three subjects? They are fiscal restraints, terms limits and limits to the size and scope of the Federal Government. Any deviations from these topics will be null and void at the convention.

So what's the second thing I didn't mention yet? The second thing is that States have the power and authority to RECALL their delegates from the convention at their discretion. If a group or individual tries to hijack the convention, the delegates can either choose on their own to go home or the States can recall their delegates and end the convention.

So, as anyone can see, there are a number of safeguards built into the process already. The likelihood of a “runaway” convention is not likely at all, especially since the last step of the process involves 3/4 of the State legislatures ratifying whatever comes out of the convention. Can you imagine 38 states adopting a new Constitution? What would you do if YOUR legislature considered such a thing? Would you burn down the phone lines? Would you camp outside your State Capitol building in protest?

There are a few other things to consider and ask yourself. First, who would try to hijack a convention of this magnitude? Second, why would they try to do it? Third, are these the same people speaking out in opposition to a convention? Opposition to an Article V Convention rarely (if at all) offers any solutions to the dire political problems facing American Citizens, while criticizing the prospect of an Article V Convention. Seemingly, opponents to calling a convention are perfectly fine with the status quo. As I pointed out in my first article, there are some serious problems with devasting consequences that are about to affect everyone living in the United States. Solutions to these problems must be set into motion immediately but the opponents to Article V offer little to no help with finding any other solutions. Instead, they continue to publish their propaganda that subliminally pushes their target audience to continue to operate under the same belief that a different result can be achieved by participating in the same broken political and judicial system. Article V gives us the VERY mechanism to implement changes which serve as the pathway to solve the problems facing this nation. It is the antithesis of violent revolution, providing each and every citizen with the opportunity to peacefully resolve our political problems. Every American who believes in the principles set forth in the US Constitution needs to realize that in order to be considered a strict Constitutionalist, you must believe in all of the words in the Constitution. You must also believe in Article V and therefore the Convention of States method of proposing Amendments as well.