Blog writers generally carry out research to establish a factual foundation and to be up to date on their topics. Most topics are upbeat, and the research is enjoyable. Occasionally, though, negative information may be encountered that seems threatening to our COS mission.
One such research article titled, “What could the US Congress do to either prevent or hinder the ratification of an Article V Proposed Amendment?” surfaced a few months ago. Its origin was a concerned Convention of States supporter, Dave Certa, Legislative Liaison from Wisconsin. Because of his long-term commitment to our effort, he became worried when his research turned up three possible ways Congress could interfere with ratification:
- It could require the ratification process be done in each state by ratifying Convention,
- Congress could use the process of Concurrence Resolution, first used for the 14th Amendment in 1868, or
- It could agree with a John Birch Society claim arising from the case of Coleman v Miller in 1992 saying that Congress owns the ratifying process. This was brought up when Congress issued a Concurrence Resolution for the 27th Amendment (after a 200-year delay since it was proposed).
Because of the horrifying thought that the entire COS effort could be sabotaged by Congress or any other federal agency, contact was made with Mike Farris, foremost Constitutional attorney and co-founder of Convention of States, for comment.
On point 1, Farris replied, “Indeed, Congress could choose the state convention methodology for the ratification process. I am very doubtful that this would happen. The general consensus is that such conventions would have fewer politicians and, thus, would be more likely to ratify the small-government kind of proposals that would come out of a convention of the states. Accordingly, it is nearly certain that Congress would choose state legislatures with the hope of defeating such proposals.”
On points 2 and 3, Farris responded, “The special circumstances of the Civil War (regarding) the 14th amendment, and the two-hundred-year delay in ratifying the 27th Amendment are inapplicable here. So, a concurrence resolution would have no validity and Coleman has not been successfully used to advance the proposition that Congress ‘owns’ the process and can do anything it wants. A case I tried proves that wrong. Idaho v. Freeman, which has been repeatedly upheld in more recent decisions, held that the attempt to extend the ratification period for the ERA was unconstitutional despite Congress's best efforts to the contrary.”
Whew! So, ratification can be carried out as planned.
Farris went on to counter fearful doubts COS workers may have:
“We cannot operate in an atmosphere of fear--it only leads to hopelessness. We should be wise and check things out. But I have far more at stake than most people in this. I have dedicated years of my life and made career choices that have real consequences. Do you think I would do this if I thought there was a real gap in the process that made all of this work for naught?
I heard similar fear stories as I worked to legalize homeschooling. They never materialized and I kept plugging away. It took 25 years to win, but we fully won against the most powerful political force in every state. Operating in fear is simply not my style.”
Farris continued, “The only relevant fear is this. Congress will be afraid of the people who successfully called a convention and got 38 states to ratify. They would not dare to override such efforts because over 80% of the members of Congress value one thing as their supreme value--their own reelection. No amount of philosophical disagreement with our successful amendments will override that principle.”
Learn more about self-governance and the Convention of States effort: www.conventionofstates.com.
