We are seeing more and more articles from the media denigrating the solution the framers put in the constitution - Article V. The media has ignored COSA for the past 10 years, but now that our message is resonating with the people, they are actively pushing the elite’s pretentious nonsense that this process is unsafe, untested, and there is no way to control the commissioners from completely rewriting the Constitution.
Stoking the fire of fear to keep us divided, and afraid to assert our God-given inalienable right to restrain government is a tactic of desperation. The stratagem is crushed by any objective examination of the historical record, a competent review of the case law on the subject, or an investigation of the credentials of the experts making the conclusions.
COSA wins hands down on all three accounts. COSA has the truth, done the necessary research by nationally recognized experts, and top peer-reviewed Constitutional scholars support the call for a convention.
Let’s face it, the elites' biggest fear is a united, informed electorate that will revoke their usurped power and return it to where it rightly belongs - with the states and the people themselves.
At the core of the anti-convention argument is the flawed premise that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a “runaway convention.”
In short, the naysayers believe that the statesmen who drafted our Constitution did so in defiance of the commissions their states gave them.
A full, well-researched response to this now-debunked claim can be read in Michael Farris’ law review article - “DEFYING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM: THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION”, published in Volume 40 - Issue 1 of the “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy” dated April 2017.
The “Runaway Convention” lie, is not a “practical” impossibility - it is impossible, period. History, precedent, and practice all prove it.
There is case law in the Supreme Court that binds Article V conventions to adhere to the subject matter contained in the approved resolution. Any proposed amendment that is outside the scope, even if it is passed out of the convention, and even if it is ratified by 38 states, will be overruled by the court and declared unconstitutional. One state objecting to the ratification of an out-of-scope amendment is all it will take, because the Artical V convention is a meeting of equal sovereigns.
Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855)
Amendatory conventions, such as an Article V convention, may be convened for a single purpose. The Court determined that “the amendment process was an act by the States and not the people, who are represented by the delegates/commissioners or by the Congress depending on the mode of consideration and passage”. Found on p.348
The widely accepted interpretation of this decision is the States and/or its citizens may not determine the proposed amendments as that power rests in the hands of either Congress or the convention delegates depending on which method is used from Article V.
Dodge is proof of the inviolable validity of state applications as “no branch is empowered to overrule the Constitution. Therefore, a state application is valid solely because it was made by the state” James Madison, The Federalist, No. 85.
Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880)
Attempts to suppress a state application based upon its timeliness, age, subject matter, or other reason is in violation of Article V. “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.” Found on page 586
United States ex rel. Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 398 (D.C. Cir. 1920) affirmed 257 U.S. 619 (1921)
The functions of an Article V Convention are complete when the convention has fulfilled its stated purpose. There is no requirement for any other officials to proclaim the completion or closure of the convention.
United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217 (1934)
The Supreme Court considers it to be the “province and duty” of the Court to determine what is Constitutional including any amendments. If an amendment is putative, or alleged, the Court will determine its validity.
These and other cases show clearly that the state legislatures will control the selection of commissioners, issue the necessary credentials, and provide the instructions for the commissioners to follow. Simply put, the commissioners will be agents of the state legislature, and basic agency law will allow the state legislatures to recall and prosecute any commissioner that ignores or disregards their commission.
The state legislatures can and will give specific instructions as to the type of amendment, the possible wording of an amendment, or what types of amendments they can approve or are to vote against. The actual wording of each and every proposed amendment will be debated and decided by the commissioners, because that is the whole purpose of the COSA petition - to allow statesmen of today's era debate the proper role of government in the 21st century and beyond.
