Many of you are familiar with the “runaway convention” argument. It is increased by a fear-mongering group opposed to a constitutional process called an ‘Article V convention of the states’ -- with no evidence or historical record to substantiate their position. Their position solely hinges on the word “could”. The opposition believes an Article V convention ‘could’ weaken the Constitution.
So it goes, it ‘could’ happen. After all anything ‘could’ happen. Never say never is what they say.
It’s a well-known fact that you cannot prove a negative. But you would think that we would have higher standards than that. To say we should not support something just because it ‘could’ have a bad outcome is the same as saying we should support something just because it ‘could’ have a good outcome. Sorry, but that does not meet the threshold for good sound decision-making.
In real life, we are confronted with making decisions such as these all of the time. Did you know that in your lifetime you have a 1% chance of dying in an automobile accident? Whether you’re the driver or passenger it ‘could’ happen to you. Driving to the grocery store or driving your child to soccer practice it ‘could’ happen. So does that mean you’ll never get into a car again? This is factual, it ‘could’ happen. This is not speculative like the “runaway convention” argument. There is actual evidence that shows auto fatalities do occur -- unlike a “runaway convention”. But I’m willing to bet you will get into a car again. You will go to the grocery store and you will take your child with you to soccer practice despite what is proven ‘could’ happen.
Each year there are roughly 400 deaths as a result of electrical failures in the home. Gas leaks result in roughly 2,000 house fires each year. So, if you have house utilities you ‘could’ die. Should we all live without these utilities; live in caves?
If you had a relative or friend who refused to have any utilities (electrical or gas) in their home or refused to get into an automobile for any reason because of their fear of dying, what would your reaction be? Would you try to get them mental health counseling to address their fear?
Their fear is not unfounded. There is evidence it ‘could’ occur, unlike the “runaway” convention fear. But I’m sure despite that evidence you would still try to get your relative or friend the mental health counseling that they need.
So is the fear of a “runaway” Article V convention paranoia or a phobia?
Paranoia is an instinct or thought process that is believed to be heavily spread by suspicion, conspiracy, or fear. A phobia is an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity. Unfortunately, it appears that the fear of a “runaway” convention falls into both these categories. When South Carolina passed their resolution for a Convention of the States, Governor McMaster responded to the “runaway” convention argument by saying “I see the ever-increasing size and scope of the federal government as the larger threat”.
The opposition’s fear of an Article V convention of the states does not take into consideration the greater threat nor the level of risk.
Paranoia or phobia? You decide.
