After I recently posted a Convention of States video on my social media pages, it immediately came under attack from both the Left and the Right.
That sort of thing from the Left is easily explained because they generally favor a strong, overreaching federal government. The more interesting human nature study is the hard Right. Numerous self-described “conservatives,” usually influenced by the John Birch Society, the Eagle Forum, and others, are fond of challenging the principle of an Article V convention, stirring up opposition against what they call an out-of-control constitutional convention. It is amusing that the Left makes the same argument.
Their premise is debunked by one simple fact. There is no such thing as a constitutional convention. In the US Constitution, there is a prescribed amendment process that has been applied many times, and that has proposed many amendments. Of those, 28 have been ratified over this country’s history and one later repealed, all by a minimum of three fourths of the states. We know the first ten of those amendments as the Bill of Rights. All were proposed by Congress under the language in Article V that allows Congress to do so.
A question: Do you trust Congress to propose amendments that would, if ratified, impose fiscal restraints on itself? Or that would constrain an over-reaching federal government? Or that would impose term limits on itself? If you do not, then without the additional language in Article V setting Congress aside if necessary, you would agree the American people can be trapped by a rogue Congress. The Founders of this nation agree, also.
The 1789 constitutional convention had done its job after a very hard several months and was getting ready to adjourn when George Mason stood up and declared they were not finished. There was one more issue that couldn’t be overlooked. Article V prescribed the congressional role and process for proposing amendments to the Constitution, but if there was ever an intransigent or rogue congress, how would the people be assured amendments could be proposed and ratified if and when necessary?
The 1789 convention recognized the flaw and added language that empowered the state legislatures to do the same thing, by bringing together a convention to consider and propose amendments for ratification by three fourths of the states. That is our protection from a tyrannical or incompetent Congress. We obviously have both today.
Any argument based on a constitutional convention is discredited at the outset. There is no such thing. It is put in front of the public as a red herring, designed to create doubt among legislators by way of a bald-faced lie about the intentions and effects of a Convention of States. The legislators themselves are in charge of the process. They make the call, select the delegates, and instruct them as to their duty.
There are those who trumpet “Just enforce the Constitution!”
My response is, "Yes, by applying Article V."
All 27 existing amendments were ratified under the Article V process in order to clarify and enforce the Constitution which, through it all, remains unchanged. That is what Article V does. To demand we enforce the Constitution while also demanding we ignore and abandon our most effective tool for doing so is a double-negative conundrum.
An irreconcilable self-imposed paradox is created by those calling themselves “conservatives” who oppose a Convention of States.
They do not trust Congress or the federal government to protect the sovereignty of the American people; but then, neither do they trust the American people.
