Are you familiar with the “runaway convention” argument? It is proliferated by a fear-mongering group opposed to a constitutional process called a ‘convention of states’ with no evidence or historical record to substantiate their claim. In fact, their claim is actually refuted by the evidence and the historical record.
Article V of the Constitution allows for two different pathways to make amendments. The first path, through Congress, is much easier. This is the reason why all 17 constitutional amendments since the Bill of Rights have gone that route.
The second path is far more difficult, taking years alone just to form a convention of the states. This is part of the reason why there have not been any amendments to the Constitution processed successfully through a ‘convention of states.’
Opponents to a ‘convention of states’ say it could lead to a runaway convention whereupon any amendment could be proposed. They say that as a result of this, our Bill of Rights could be put in jeopardy. That our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and our right to privacy could be repealed by such a proposal.
But if any of that nonsense were true, wouldn’t it have already occurred?
The runaway convention argument is predicated on two false beliefs.
(1) First, the convention is an open forum where any proposal can be introduced. This is contrary to precedence and a historical record of over 40 conventions that have occurred, mostly regional, and that remained consistent with their original calling and purpose.
The false open forum belief is also in conflict with the requirement that 34 states must make the same application to Congress for a ‘convention of states’. If the convention was allowed to have an open forum, as the opposition says, then there would be no reason or purpose for the states to submit applications to Congress with the same topics listed. It would be sufficient then for the States to submit an application for only a convention with no other reason, purpose, or agenda.
And since over 40 states still have applications open to Congress for a ‘convention of states’, with various topics and purposes, it stands to reason that Congress should have already set the time and place for the convention as mandated in the Constitution. But since Congress has not done so, one can only conclude that the Constitution demands that the states can only convene if the applications made by 2/3 of the states cover the same topics, purpose, or agenda.
(2) The other false belief that predicates the runaway convention argument is that there are nefarious persons with enough political ambition, power, and strength that could get something so extreme as repealing our constitutional rights passed as an amendment.
But if that were true, why would these nefarious actors wait years and years to do that through a ‘convention of states’? Why not do it right now through the congressional pathway? Congress is an easier path for constitutional amendments as proven throughout history. And now Congress, being filled with millionaire career politicians, makes something like that even easier. So, if there was enough nefarious political ambition, power, and strength to repeal our constitutional rights as described by the fear-mongers, it would have already happened – through the congressional path. But it hasn’t happened, indicating that there is not enough political will to do something as egregious as repealing constitutional rights by either pathway.
The arguments made above show that if either of these false beliefs were true that could lead to a repeal of our constitutional rights, then they would have already occurred. But since it hasn’t happened, it shows that it won’t happen during a ‘convention of states’.
In short: if it could’ve - it would’ve. But since it hasn’t - it won’t.
John Poelstra is a District Captain for COS in Michigan.
