Since the push for an Article V convention began, COS supporters have heard a lot of egregious lies about how such a process would play out. A newly released op-ed in The Federalist, however, takes egregious to a whole new level.
Within the article's very first sentence, author Elaine Donnelly falsely labels the Article V convention process as a "constitutional convention."
As explained by COS co-founder Michael Farris, "a constitutional convention operates outside the structures of an existing government," whereas an Article V convention of the states "operates under the rules set out specifically in Article V."
The idea that such a process is anything like a "Con-Con," where states are blatantly setting fire to the Constitution in favor of a new one, is completely bogus.
While a constitutional convention's source of power is residual, a COS's source of power comes from the existing process spelled out in Article V of the Constitution.
Yet COS opponents like Donnelly must intentionally obscure this truth from the American public in order to make citizens fearful of what a convention would bring.
On top of lying about what an Article V convention actually is, Donnelly also repeats multiple mistruths about how a convention would actually operate.
One of these falsehoods includes the claim that congressional leadership like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would have the power to appoint delegates to the convention.
Yet, anyone who's done basic research on how the convention process works would know that it is the state legislatures that appoint delegates to the convention, not the U.S. Congress.
While Congress has the power to call the convention once 34 states have called for one, they have no say in deciding who the states choose to represent them at the convention or how the convention itself operates.
In her continued crusade against COS, Donnelly also lies when claiming that there is no control over "what issues are discussed."
Under an Article V convention, states are only permitted to discuss and propose amendments related to the specific subject matters laid out in the near-identical resolutions passed by 34 states: term limits on federal officials, balancing the federal budget, and limiting the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government.
In fact, the only way a convention can even take place is if 34 states pass resolutions that seek to address the same issues, as there must be a consensus among the two-thirds of states on what areas to discuss.
Throughout the rest of her illogical diatribe, Donnelly employs the same old boogeyman, fear-mongering tactics used to scare Americans away from supporting a COS, such as the threat of a leftist high-jacking of the convention process.
Nowhere in her piece, however, does Donnelly address the numerous safeguards that exist, such as needing only 13 states to vote "no" for any amendment that comes out of convention to fail (a process, which in itself requires 26 states to approve).
Donnelly's refusal to address such safety measures, or even the historical literature of how inner-state conventions have operated throughout U.S. history is emblematic of the tried, runaway convention narrative that has falsely circulated the mainstream for years.
But to Donnelly, I would ask: what do you propose we do to stop our runaway federal government?
Whether it's the unconstitutional health edicts, the $30 trillion in national debt, or career politicians getting rich off the taxpayers' back, our federal government is a massive problem that's only getting bigger.
If conservatives like Donnelly opposed to COS wish to preserve what's left of our Union and reclaim the country our Founders envisioned for us, perhaps they should ignore the fearful rhetoric and take a second look at the history and facts related to an Article V convention.
Doing so will not only dispel many of the lies dispensed and spread throughout the modern pollical landscape, but also help us get this country back on the right track.
