At the bus stop decades ago, I complained to a friend and fellow parent about a recent unpopular decision made by school leadership. The details of the decision had come to me through the grapevine of other parents who, like me, found it easy to question the administration despite my lack of proximity to the people or the process.
School leadership simply did not care. Outrageous!
Expecting a response to the decision to feed my animus, my bus stop friend simply looked me in the face and said, "Does that make sense to you?”
Her uncomfortable challenge led me to consider the truth. The story I was telling did not make sense; I was merely repeating discord perpetuated by people who sought every reason to disapprove of school leadership.
The bus stop interaction changed me forever, serving as a reminder to assess messages through a lens of objectivity, and not with the slant of emotion and quick judgement.
Decades farther into adulting, I draw on this simple life lesson often in my work as a volunteer with Convention of States, an ongoing national effort to invoke the second clause of Article V of the US Constitution allowing the states, in convention, to propose amendments to the Constitution. Any proposed amendment, just like the 27 that we have now, must pass by a supermajority (38) of the states.
Most Americans are only familiar with the method of adding amendments via Congress. A state amending convention has never been called and is thus a bit of an enigma. Article V is short and succinct. To understand it, please read HERE.
The second clause of Article V allowing a state amending convention is situated for all to see as part of the US Constitution. It is not new. It was ratified along with the rest of our country’s by-laws in 1789 for the purpose of proposing amendments the citizens and states desire, but Congress largely does not.
Makes No Sense
Despite the facts presented by proponents of a state amending convention and the language of Article V, advocates regularly must deflect untruths about the safety and effectiveness of the states’ legal right to propose amendments. A radio show host once went so far as to call the second clause of Article V a “wonky” part of the Constitution. Wonky he said.
Does that make sense to you?
The second clause of Article V is not wonky, nor is any part of the Constitution except possibly in the mind a third-grader. The fifth article is not wonky, weird, nor debatable. It is no more questionable than any other part of the Constitution like the Preamble and Articles I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII.
No true patriot would travel Ohio to debate the legitimacy of the three branches of government as outlined in the Constitution. Nonetheless, the efficacy of Article V is up for debate all the time.
An Ohio gentleman who has clearly drunk the fear-inducing Kool Aid of the John Birch Society travels the state, launching his arguments against an amending convention from two weak platforms: one that purports the Constitution can be rewritten, and the other warning the risk of a runaway convention.
The first of his whoppers is his insistence that the language of Article V (as stated above) calls for a Constitutional Convention and thus by definition, will bring state delegates together to literally rewrite the entire Constitution.
Does that make sense to you?
No, the authors of the Constitution did not intend for a full rewrite in the event the states felt a need to amend. When the Founding Fathers included the second clause of Article V in the Constitution, it was for the purpose of writing amendments, not rewriting the entire Constitution.
There is no part of the text of Article V that allows for a new Constitution to be drafted. A new Constitution would have to be proposed outside the framework of our current Constitution, not within it. But, when a man who purports to be an expert states fiction as fact, it frightens people.
This same character and his ilk foment discontent even further by accusing our Founding Fathers of illegally writing the Constitution. Yes, there are people who believe our Constitution was illegally written and adopted because the 1787 Convention went beyond the scope of its call.
Does that make sense to you?
The Constitution was ratified in 1788 by the nine states needed for passage. If the whole arduous undertaking had been illegal, how would ratification have been allowed? The Annapolis Convention resolution stated the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was, “to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union.” And that’s exactly what the Founders did.
Ironically, despite the fear detractors like to evoke by repeating the runaway theory and smearing our Founders as criminals, there's an obvious paradox in the resulting brilliance of the greatest, most revered national Constitution in all of humanity.
The Real Fear
The real fear is in not standing up to big government tyranny and out-of-touch career politicians. It is an all-out travesty that we accept status quo which includes a national debt that is reaching upwards of $36 trillion. All the while, a state amending convention remains an untapped tool that could affect real change in Washington.
The process of a state amending convention is safe. Invoking Article V is far too important to allow its legitimacy to be overshadowed by uncertainty and the conjecture of Article V detractors.
It is high time Ohio’s citizens and state legislators seek the truth with respect to Article V. They must, as we all should, assess messages through a lens of objectivity without leaning into emotion and quick judgement.
For a more academic look at the difference between a Constitutional Convention and a state amending convention, read HERE.
Click Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy to access 86 pages of solid wisdom from Constitutional Attorney Dr. Michael Farris on exactly how the Founders acted in good faith when they wrote the Constitution.
Learn more at www.ConventionofStates.com
