Opponents of an Article V Convention of the States for Proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are stoking fear with objections based upon disinformation. A common objection to an Article V Convention for proposing amendments is the belief that the convention will “runaway” by ignoring the limitations placed on it. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 often is cited as an example of a runaway convention.
Limitations on a convention arise from two sources: the call and the commissions. The call is the first resolution calling for a convention, and it places limitations on the convention as a whole. A commission is a set of instructions a state legislature gives to its representatives (commissioners.) A commission can be more restrictive than the call.
The claim that the 1787 convention exceeded its call starts with incorrect identification of the call. Consider the table on page 2, which lists each of the resolutions leading up to the 1787 convention. The claim is made that the Continental Congress made the call on Feb. 21, 1787, and restricted the convention to revising the Articles of Confederation. How could this be ‘the call’ if six states had already selected and instructed their commissioners prior to the Feb. 21, 1787 date? How would those states know the subject matter, date, and location of the convention? In fact, the Articles of Confederation did not grant the Confederation Congress the power to call a Convention of the States.
It was Virginia that issued the call on Nov. 23, 1786, without restricting the convention to revising the Articles of Confederation. New York and Massachusetts did issue commissions that restricted their commissioners to revising the Articles of Confederation, but the convention as a whole was not so restricted. There have been at least 42 Conventions of States in our history (see the table on page 3 of the attachment linked below), and not one has deviated from the scope of its call (runaway.) It is also worth noting in that same table all 42 previous Conventions of States operated on the principle of one state, one vote.
Another common objection claims that we do not know how a Convention of States would operate. The list of 42 previous Conventions of States would demonstrate that we have a great deal of experience with operating Conventions of States. In addition, the operation of Conventions of States is well established in a significant number of court cases on the subject. A sampling of these rulings can be found in the table on page 4.
Finally, it is self-evident that the framers knew exactly what they meant by a Convention of the States when they drafted that mechanism into Article V because they were participating in a Convention of States at the time! In essence, the founders were saying, “if the states desire to propose amendments to the Constitution, use the same method we are using right now.”
The data in the three tables located on the file linked below is clear evidence that an Article V Convention of the States for Proposing Amendments is the safe, reliable, and time-tested method the framers intended for such a time as this.
Conventional Disinformation PDF by Paul Phillips, Convention of States, Published February, 2023
For Liberty,
Brett
Please bookmark (AKA favorites) our Missouri Information Page.
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.
