Slide 7
“Everything you want is on the other side of fear.”— Jack Canfield
The general myths the left uses to stoke fear:
- There has never been an Article V convention of states, so it is untested
- No one knows what could happen
- The scope can’t be limited
- We don’t know how it works
- State legislatures can’t control the delegates they send to convention
Every point on this list of mongered fears is an offshoot of the favored taradiddle that ‘the 1787 Philadelphia Convention was a runaway’.
This premise is the cornerstone of the opposition, complete with a nickname, ‘Con-Con’.
The untruth that Convention of States Action is intent on destroying our precious Constitution and system of government is shouted as loud as possible, while nothing could be further from the truth.
Using the Constitution to Save the Constitution is quite literally the mantra of the grassroots effort to call an Article V Convention of States.
COSA can prove this premise entirely false. Thus, the rest of their so-called “rock solid” evidence crumbles like a house of cards.
Once again, history, the experts, and facts prove this assertion baseless.
Whether the deception is intentional or based on the misguided good faith of an unreliable source (which, giving the benefit of the doubt, is likely the case in the vast majority of those who hold this view), the historical record is unequivocal:
- The claim that the 1787 convention exceeded its call starts with an incorrect identification of the call. The false claim is the Confederation Congress called the convention and restricted it to revising the Articles of Confederation.
- How could this be the call if six states had already selected and instructed their commissioners before February 21, 1787?
- How would those states know the convention's subject matter, date, and location?
- The Articles of Confederation did not grant the Confederation Congress the power to call a Convention of the States. In fact, Virginia issued the call on November 23, 1786 (based on a report issued after the 1786 Annapolis, Md. convention) without restricting the convention to revising the Articles of Confederation. Their instruction to their commissioners was as follows: “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.”
- New York and Massachusetts issued commissions restricting their commissioners to revising the Articles of Confederation, but the convention was not so restricted.
- The case law—Smith v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 30 U.S. 518 (1831)—found that an Article V Convention is a “convention of the States” endowed with an interstate convention's powers.
- In 2017, Michael Farris published an 85-page peer-reviewed scholarly article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 40, Number 1, entitled “Defying Conventional Wisdom: The Constitution Was Not The Product of a Runaway Convention.” This painstakingly researched, and fully footnoted (from historical record) article written by Professor Farris has mainly been ignored by the nay-sayers because it doesn't fit their agenda.
The question now before you is, who do you believe?
Professor Farris’s scholarly and legal bona fides are impeccable and easily fact-checked. You are strongly encouraged to read the article, check his credentials, and decide for yourself.
The facts demonstrate that the “call” for the convention sets the limits of the topics to be discussed.
It is essential to understand that the 1787 Philadelphia Convention occurred before the existence of Article V, and the call granted plenipotentiary power to the commissioners, conferring full authority to act.
An Article V convention of states for proposing amendments "call" will only authorize the debate of proposed amendments based on the topics stated in the 34 aggregable applications.
The differences between the “Con-Con myth” and an Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments could not be more stark; it is all the difference in the world.
