Last week we discussed and discredited the “Part-Time Constitutionalists” and the Left’s "runaway convention" myth. This week, we tackle another false and illogical claim that the states are not in control of an Article V convention of states meeting. Since 1787, there have been more than 40 interstate conventions. These have not been conventions under the authority of Article V. However, it’s important to see how these meetings were conducted.
One such interstate meeting was held in St. Louis in 1889. The St. Louis Meat Packers interstate convention was called due to the opinion that a group of Chicago meat packers were colluding to reduce pork and beef prices and harm farmers in the Midwest. Kansas initiated this call. Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Texas and Indiana also participated.
It was suggested that each state’s delegation consist of three members, but not every state followed this suggestion. Missouri actually sent ten members to the convention. Other states had their state legislature select their delegates, while even others chose to have House or Senate leadership select their delegation. This demonstrates that with the convention of states process, the number of commissioners a state sends and how the commissioners are selected is determined by each state’s legislature.
The meeting was convened in St. Louis at the Southern Hotel and quickly moved to the House of Delegates Hall at the invitation of the Mayor of St. Louis. It followed other principles of a convention of states meeting. That is, it was called to discuss limited topics and remained within that scope.
The delegates selected officers to preside over the meeting and they drafted rules to govern the meeting. Committees were formed to discuss and propose solutions within the scope of the resolution and committees delivered recommendations that remained within the scope of the meeting’s agenda.
This is just one example of an interstate meeting that functioned as a convention of states meeting would. The participating states clearly demonstrated they were in control of the convention proceedings. The delegates selected followed their state-issued instructions, and discussions remained within the scope of the call. This has held true for dozens of other interstate conventions.
The claim that an Article V convention of states meeting is controlled by Congress is based on a February 21, 1787, resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress. What opponents refuse to recognize happened prior to that date. Seven states already had passed resolutions calling for a meeting in Philadelphia to begin in May 1787. The purpose of that meeting was to devise a new federal Constitution.
The Congressional Resolution was not addressed to or transmitted to the states, as was customary with binding resolutions. This was simply a concurrence of the Second Continental Congress to the actions the states already had chosen to undertake.
Therefore, Congress only has an administrative role in an Article V convention of states meeting. Congress’ role is to name the time and place of the meeting. They must do this in a reasonable period of time. If they do not, the states have the ability to do so under their residual sovereign authority.
This is evidenced by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85. Hamilton writes:
“By the fifth article of the plan the congress will be obliged, “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, (which at present amounts to nine) to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence all the declamation about their disinclination to a change, vanishes in air.”
Additionally, if the commissioners do not approve of the location Congress proposes for the convention of states meeting, they can change the location, just as they did with the St. Louis Meat Packers meeting.
Finally, the idea that The Framers would propose a process state legislatures could use to propose constitutional amendments themselves and then allow that process to be controlled by Congress defies logic. The Framers were mindful of how the federal government may expand its power.
The convention of states process was specifically drafted and adopted unanimously to provide the states a Constitutional remedy to federal government overreach. To think they would leave control of that process to the federal government is yet another slander against The Framers.
Next week’s topic: “Why the Convention of States Project approach is ‘the Solution as Big as the Problems.'”
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.
