What’s Your Alternative? (Part 1)
The Runaway Convention Myth
Monday, May 2, 2022
It was brought to my attention at the Missouri State Capitol last week that Article V opposition groups are at it again. This time it’s in response to a competing Article V resolution that focuses solely on term limits. Their text also recommends rescinding all other Article V applications, and makes all the usual claims – claims stemming from fear to the ridiculous. These groups often tout their constitutional bona fides to feign legitimacy. I’ve nicknamed these groups “part-time constitutionalists” that need to be called out for their deception. So, In the next few weeks, we’ll delve into some of their claims and rebut them with history, facts and common sense. These will be explanations that have been successful in gaining Convention of States Project support in the Missouri Legislature.
This week we will address the ‘Runaway Convention Myth’ and its derivatives.
The basis of this myth begins with the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. Opposition groups claim the only time we’ve held a convention of the type called for in Article V, was in 1787. They say The Framers were instructed by the Second Continental Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation. The delegates went to Philadelphia, locked themselves inside a room, shuttered the windows, ignored their instructions and wrote a totally new governing document. They also claim The Framers illegally changed the method of ratification. And, they typically end by stating they’re happy The Framers did this because they "love the Constitution."
I used to chuckle when I heard this claim; but not anymore. This is blatant slandering of The Framers. COSP’s co-Founder Mike Farris says, “This is like saying George Washington was a great patriot but he was also a British spy.”
Duty and honor were of paramount importance in the late-18th century. The definition of duty in The Framers’ time was different than it is today. Duty was a “legally-binding, contractual obligation.” Duty was not an option for the delegates to the 1787 Convention. We know this from the actual commissions given to the delegates – that they acted according to their instructions.
That The Framers acted in accordance with their commissions is clear by reading the credentials given to them by their state legislatures. Their instructions were to meet, “devising and discussing all such Alterations and farther Provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union.” Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut were the only states whose commissions even mentioned the Articles of Confederation. Their commissions even included the language, “to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union.” You’d think if the 1787 delegates only had the authority to amend the Articles of Confederation (AoC) that: 1) every state’s commission would mention the AoC; and 2) there wouldn’t be any mention of greater authority to, “render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” Rhode Island didn’t even participate in the 1787 Convention so it did not issue any credentials.
The 'part-time Constitutionalists’' claim also defies common sense. First, they claim the delegates essentially committed a crime. And then, they say they love the Constitution and are happy The Framers illegally drafted it. This is like saying, my uncle robbed a bank but his family really needed the money so I am glad he did it. This makes absolutely no sense. The ends do not justify the means. This is a common feature of arguments developed by the Left, and their arguments will contradict themselves in a short period of time. This is because their claims are not rooted in truth.
Their second claim is this – that the ratification process was illegally changed from ‘unanimous agreement of the states and Congress’ to only nine states needed for ratification. Again, this defies history.
Two proposals resulted from the 1787 Convention. One was the Constitution itself. The second was a proposal to set the threshold for ratification to 9 states from 13. There were good reasons for this. Remember, Rhode Island did not participate in the 1787 Convention so it was unclear what Rhone Island’s position would be. The New York delegation attempted to take control of the Convention proceedings, and when they failed, their delegation fell apart and only Alexander Hamilton remained. Ratification by Massachusetts was in doubt as well.
The options were limited: continue operating under the unworkable Articles of Confederation until the Union fell apart and likely face being conquered by England or, ratify a new governing document through three-fourths of the states that may allow the country to function. The delegates wisely decided upon the latter approach. In the end, both the change to ratification and the new Constitution were unanimously ratified by the States and by Congress. Even if the Articles of Confederation applied, the unanimous requirement for ratification was fulfilled.
Stay tuned. Next week’s topic, “Who Controls a Convention of States Meeting?” is going to be an interesting one.
In liberty,
Brett
Please bookmark the Missouri Information Page and share it with family and friends.
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered!
Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
