Our opponents repeatedly express fear and distrust during state hearings. There may be a change we can make in our explanations to help them better understand our determined point of view and relieve their anxiety.
A case in point: anyone listening to the South Dakota Committee hearing on Friday, January 17, 2025 heard the standard, oft-repeated concerns:
- Rogue delegates may turn the convention into a runaway.
- The Constitution may be opened and some parts of it eliminated.
- There are no written rules for running the convention.
- How are delegates chosen – some could be terrible?
- Unfettered abortion may be added.
- Don’t change the Constitution, just enforce it.
These concerns are filled with errors, misunderstandings, and speculation. Let’s consider alternative or additional statements our presenters can use to bring better interaction with our opponents, as discussed in a moment. First, look at our present approach.
Usually, we in COSA explain our purpose or rebut erroneous charges using generalized, large-brush terminology. Such as:
- The states will be proposing amendments, not ratifying them.
- The original Constitution will remain unchanged.
- The rules for the meeting will follow precedent.
- The delegates will be instructed by their legislature to press that state’s point of view.
- On each amendment proposal each state will have only one vote.
- It will take ratification by 38 of the states on each amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.
These reassurances are accurate, but they are lofty concepts somewhat esoteric sounding. We risk being taken as saying, “Things will be ok because we have told you so."
In addition to those technically correct explanations, it is imperative to mention concrete amendment ideas already being floated, ones that relate to current problems nearly every citizen knows.
We need to draw opponents in and engage them emotionally to feel the validity of the changes we envision. Also critically important, we should emphasize that in every case these ideas are meant to restore integrity to government’s processes.
Examples:
- Legislation should be single subject, or at most 3 or 4 subjects, written by members of congress, not 4000-page omnibus bills by unelected bureaucrats.
- No more bills loaded with regulations and hidden spending that are only discovered after being enacted.
- Congress must be forced to present and follow an annual balanced budget.
- Spending is to be initiated by the House, not at the whim of the president by executive order.
- Require that spending is to be tracked using standard accounting procedures.
- Maintain the Supreme Court at 9 members to avoid future political manipulation by packing the court.
Illustrating the types of amendments our resolution hopes to inspire will place the problems before the listeners in terms they understand. It proves the convention can be expected to result in strengthening the Constitution, not threatening to alter it against the will of the people.
Each amendment suggestion will be safeguarded from harmful ideas by the fact that at least 38 state legislatures must vote to pass the changes, and the public always can give input to their legislatures during the ratification process.
Bottom line: concrete examples will help the fearful opposition realize that only common-sense amendments will be proposed, because only those gaining near-unanimous acceptance by the public have any chance of being ratified.
The vote by the South Dakota Senate committee, whose members do understand COSA, passed SJR-502 by a vote of 8 to 1, but the opposition very likely went home holding their misconceptions. If only they would take time to truly study what we are about!
A starting point for anyone reading this may be found at www.conventionofstates.com.
Click HERE to hear a recording of the January 17, 2025 South Dakota Committee.
