Convention of States is a non-partisan effort founded on the basic premise that the federal government is out of control, and career politicians of both parties are responsible.
They are drunk on power and spending money. Look no further than the $23 trillion in debt. For the first time since World War II, our debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100 percent.
The COS project is an ambitious plan to use Article V of the Constitution to call a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution that Congress will never do on their own.
Those amendments would fall into three categories: term limits on federal officials, imposing fiscal restraints, and amendments to restrict the power and scope of the federal government. Our Founders knew this day would come and provided us the means in Article V to reset the power structure between the federal government and the states.
The process requires two-thirds of the states (34) to pass a resolution in their state legislatures calling on Congress to call a Convention of States per Article V.
The resolution currently in the North Carolina House is H390. Fifteen states have passed this resolution, but not North Carolina. One of the reasons is opposition from state politicians like Larry Pittman in NC House District 83.
When constituents ask Rep. Pittman about his position on COS, he will send them this statement. Let’s focus on four mis-characterizations.
Misleading statement #1: “…it is impossible to rein in the federal government by amendments because amendments can’t take away powers which weren’t delegated in the first place!”
This is nonsense and double-talk. The fact is, many of the 27 existing amendments to the Constitution do restrict the federal government. For instance, the First Amendment.
The only difference in a Convention of States is that, rather than Congress proposing amendments, the convention proposes amendments. In both cases, every amendment has to be ratified by 38 states in order for it to take effect.
This is a tool the Founders gave us to bypass Congress to propose amendments they will never do on their own. If you oppose this way of amending the Constitution, then by extension, you do not believe in the first way to amend the constitution via Congress. You cannot have it both ways.
Misleading statement #2: “During September 2016, with great fanfare and hoopla, COSP staged a 3-day simulated convention at Williamsburg, Virginia…The Delegates to the simulated convention produced six amendments: One for term limits, and five which would dramatically increase the power of the federal government…So the amendments don’t “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” – they would increase the powers of the federal government by delegating new dictatorial powers over Americans and by legalizing powers the federal government has already usurped.”
Read how he characterizes these six proposed amendments in his statement, then read for yourself the actual text of the proposed amendments. Do you think he is being truthful in how he interprets them?
Remember, these are only proposed amendments. In a real Convention of States, these proposals would be transmitted to the states and each and every one of them would need to be ratified by 38 states. The convention has no legal power to simply unilaterally declare these official constitutional amendments.
Misleading statement #3: “The convention lobby is funded by powerful moneyed interests [primarily the Koch Brothers of Texas and George Soros]”
This is just not true. COS is a true non-partisan grassroots organization. In fact, George Soros opposes COS and supports hundreds of leftist organizations, like Common Cause, to defeat this effort. He is not funding COS. If you oppose COS, then you are aligned with the likes of George Soros and Hillary Clinton .
Look at who is really supporting COS, including well-known conservative thinkers and constitutional experts. Consider what Civitas has to say.
The argument Rep. Pittman is really making is that he has a fear that somehow “liberals” will take over the convention, that “they want a new Constitution for this country.” That the convention will run away is a well-worn argument that has been debunked.
The problem with that underlying argument is there’s no legal mechanism for the convention to simply enforce a new Constitution. That implies an extra-constitutional process. On the other hand, an Article V Convention of States that works within the Constitution. Here is how the process actually works.
Misleading statement #4: “The States cannot dictate to such a convention what their actions must be. The people of the States would not get to vote on whether to accept the report. Article V does not allow for that. It gives the States the choice of either the Legislature voting to approve the changes proposed or to hold a convention in each State where chosen delegates would make the decisions, not the voters.”
These four sentences illustrate a total lack of understanding and a confused argument. First, the states absolutely dictate what happens at the convention. The resolution defines what they can discuss. The state legislatures have freedom to come up with the process to choose the commissioners to the convention, but the well-established rules are “one state, one vote.”
Commissioners to the convention are given a commission by the legislature. If they go beyond their commission which is defined by the resolution, then they can be recalled. Rep. Pittman has the power to control them. Some states have passed legislation to impose civil penalties on commissioners if the state legislature does not trust themselves to manage their own commissioners.
His statement about the states having a choice for either the legislature or a convention to “approve the changes proposed” has nothing to do with his basic argument that the states cannot control the convention. What he is referring to is the process by which any amendment, whether proposed by Congress or by a Convention of States, gets ratified. This ratification process is defined in Article V.
He is obviously confused about his own argument. He is implying, without intending to, that all 27 amendments to the Constitution are somehow invalid, because they were ratified by the process prescribed in Article V!
So, in the end, the constituents of NC House District 83 will have to judge whether Rep. Pittman is being truthful about how a Convention of States would work. The worst thing that can happen at the convention is if no amendments are proposed. Any amendments that are proposed still have to be ratified by 38 states.
Read Article V. Read the more than 40 federal and SCOTUS rulings on a COS. Look at who is supporting and who is opposing this effort.
Of course, those who oppose this are perfectly happy to accept an out-of-control federal government. If not this process--a tool our Founders knew we would someday need--then what do those who oppose this propose we do? You need to ask Rep. Pittman how we are going to limit the scope of the federal government. He is responsible.
Jeff Groh resides in western North Carolina and is a small business owner. He is also a Regional Captain for the Convention of States Project, a non-partisan effort to rein in the expanding role of the federal government. Email him at jgroh@newproductvisions.com or connect with him on LinkedIn or Facebook. Check out his blog here.
