This website uses cookies to improve your experience.

Please enable cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website

Sign the petition

to call for a

Convention of States!

signatures

Conventional Disinformation

Published in Blog on February 21, 2023 by Paul Phillips

Click here to download this blog as a PDF to distribute to legislators! 

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 is often 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) and 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 below, listing each of the resolutions leading up to the 1787 convention. The claim is made that the Continental Congress made the call on February 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 February 21, 1787? How would those states know the subject matter, date, and location of the convention? 

The 1787 Constitutional Convention Call and Commissions

Date State Commission
11/23/1786 Virginia devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.  [meet Second Monday in May 1787 in Philadelphia]
11/24/1786 New Jersey for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof
12/3/1786 Pennsylvania devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the foederal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union
1/6/1787 North Carolina To discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our foederal union, and to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect.
2/3/1787 Delaware devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the Foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union  [each State shall have one vote]
2/10/1787 Georgia 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.
2/21/1787 Confederation Congress the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.
3/6/1787 New York the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.
3/7/1787 Massachusetts amend the Articles of Confederation to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.
3/8/1787 South Carolina in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and provisions as may be thought necessary to render the foederal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states
5/17/1787 Connecticut Such Alterations and Provisions, agreeable to the general Principles of Republican Government, as they shall think proper, to render the foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Government, and the Preservation of the Union.
5/26/1787 Maryland considering such alterations, and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate for the exigencies of the union.
6/27/1787 New Hampshire

to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of our federal union

Defying Conventional Wisdom: The Constitution Was Not The Product of a Runaway Convention By Michael Farris

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 November 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 forty-two Conventions of States in our history and not one has deviated from the scope of its call (runaway). It is also worth noting that all forty-two previous Conventions of States operated on the principle of one state, one vote.

42 Historical Conventions of States

Year Location Purpose 1 state/1 vote Runaway
1677 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1684 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1689 Boston Defense issues Yes No
1689 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1690 New York City Defense Yes No
1693 New York City Defense Yes No
1694 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1704 New York City Defense Yes No
1711 Boston Defense Yes No
1722 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1744 Albany Defense Yes No
1744 Lancaster Indian negotiations Yes No
1745 Albany Defense Yes No
1745 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1747 New York City Defense Yes No
1751 Albany Indian negotiations Yes No
1754 Albany Indian negotiations and plan of union Yes No
1765 New York City Response to Stamp Act Yes No
1768 Fort Stanyx Indian negotiations Yes No
1774 New York City Response to British actions Yes No
1776-77 Providence, RI Paper currency and public debt Yes No
1777 Yorktown, PA Price Control Yes No
1777 Springfield, MA Economic issues Yes No
1778 New Haven, CT Price controls and other responses to inflation Yes No
1779 Hartford, CT Economic Issues Yes No
1780 Philadelphia, PA Price controls Yes No
1780 Boston, MA Conduct of Revolutionary War Yes No
1780 Hartford, CT Conduct of Revolutionary War Yes No
1781 Providence, RI War supply Yes No
1786 Annapolis, MD Trade Yes No
1787 Philadelphia, PA Propose changes to political system Yes No
1814 Hartford, CT New England states response to War of 1812 Yes No
1850 Nashville, TN Southern response to the North Yes No
1861 Washington, DC Propose a constitutional amendment Yes No
1861 Montgomery, AL Write the Confederate Constitution Yes No
1889 St. Louis, MO Propose anti-trust measures Yes No
1922 Santa Fe, NM Negotiate Colorado River Compact Yes No
1928-29 Santa Fe, NM Negotiate temporary Rio Grande Compact Yes No
1928-38 Colorado Springs, CO Santa Fe, NM Negotiate Rio Grande Compact Yes No
1937 Santa Fe, NM Negotiate Rio Grande Compact Yes No
1946-49 Denver, CO Negotiate the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact Yes No
2017 Phoenix, AZ Propose rules for an Article V convention to propose a balanced budget Yes No

List of Conventions of States and Colonies in American History by Robert Natelson
No, a Convention of States Could Not Change the “One State/One Vote” Rule by Robert Natelson

Another common objection claims that we do not know how a Convention of States would operate. The list of forty-two 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 below.

Selected Court Cases Related to Article V

Case Holding
Barker v. Hazeltine, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (D.S.D. 1998)  Article V is the only constitutional method of amending the US Constitution.
Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855)  Amendatory conventions may be single issue. The States and/or the people cannot dictate the amendments. A state application is valid solely because it was made by the state.
Gralike v. Cooke, 191 F. 3d 911 (8th Cir. 1999) Article V Conventions cannot be prohibited from deliberation and consideration of a proposed amendment and thereby limited to pre-written wording.
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798)  No signature of the President is required for a constitutional amendment to be valid and complete.
In Re Opinion of the Justices, 204 N.C. 306, 172 S.E. 474 (1933)  An Article V Convention may be limited in purpose to a single issue or to a fixed set of issues.
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) The state legislature’s discretion could not be supplanted by the rules imposed by a third party.
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 373 Mass. 877, 366 N.E. 2d 1226 (1977)  The governor plays no role in the approval process of an Article V Convention application.
Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842) No one is authorized to question the validity of a state’s application for an Article V Convention.
Smith v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 30 U.S. 518 (1831) An Article V Convention is a “convention of the States” and is therefore endowed with the powers of an interstate convention.
State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 320 (1920)  An Article V Convention will require only two-thirds of the quorum present to conduct business.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)  The amendment and ratification processes cannot be changed to circumvent the Article V Convention.
United States v. Thibault, 47 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1931) The federal or national government is not concerned with how an Article V Convention of a state legislature is constituted. Therefore, the Article V Convention is empowered to organize and conduct its business as the delegates or commissioners see fit. 
Findings of Court Cases Related to Article V of the United States Constitution compiled and researched by the members of the Wisconsin GrandSons of Liberty

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 the 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 is clear. 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.

Click here to download this blog as a PDF to distribute to legislators! 

Sign the petition to call for an Article V convention!

2,607,408 signatures

Petition your state legislator

Almost everyone knows that our federal government is on a dangerous course. The unsustainable debt combined with crushing regulations on states and businesses is a recipe for disaster.

What is less known is that the Founders gave state legislatures the power to act as a final check on abuses of power by Washington, DC. Article V of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the state legislatures to call a convention to proposing needed amendments to the Constitution. This process does not require the consent of the federal government in Washington DC.

I support Convention of States; a national movement to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

I want our state to be one of the necessary 34 states to pass a resolution calling for this kind of an Article V convention. You can find a copy of the model resolution and the Article V Pocket Guide (which explains the process and answers many questions) here: https://conventionofstates.com/handbook_pdf

I ask that you support Convention of States and consider becoming a co-sponsor. Please respond to my request by informing the national COS team of your position, or sending them any questions you may have:

info@conventionofstates.com or (540) 441-7227.

Thank you so much for your service to the people of our district.

Respectfully, [Your Name]

By checking this box, you agree to receive text messages sent via an “autodialer”. Our text messages are intended to inform you of events, calls to action, volunteering opportunities, and other matters pertaining to self-governance. Text STOP to stop receiving messages. Text HELP for more info. Message frequency varies. Message and data rates may apply. View Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Provide your full address and we will deliver your petition directly to your state legislators now and again during the legislative sessions, Free of Charge. We Protect your privacy.

We welcome all US citizens to support our movement by signing the petition. To deliver the petition to your state legislators, you must enter your full address, which must be within one of the 50 states. For military personnel serving overseas, or for expatriates, enter your Voting Residence Address .

Please be sure to check the "Send me email updates" box, and include your phone number above.

How did you hear about us:

Click here to get involved!
Convention of states action

Are you sure you don't want emailed updates on our progress and local events? We respect your privacy, but we don't want you to feel left out!

Processing...