The legislative season in most states across the country is well underway, and Missouri is no different.
The Missouri legislature has already taken up several significant issues, from Covid liability to preserving the 22nd Amendment. Other pro-liberty issues deal with preserving the sanctity of life, election law, and the initiative process. Additionally, there are several Article V issues in front of the legislature, which we’ll compare in a moment.
Presently, the Convention of States Project has two legislative issues moving through the system. One is Missouri’s application to call an Article V convention of states meeting. Missouri originally passed this resolution in May 2017 with a five-year sunset clause. This means that unless the sunset clause is extended or removed by legislation, Missouri’s application will expire May 12, 2022.
During the current Missouri session, House resolution HCR17 and Missouri Senate resolution SCR4 are exactly the same resolutions verbatim that passed in 2017 with one exception: neither one includes a sunset clause. We need to pass these resolutions in this legislative session.
The second issue at hand is the process the Missouri legislature will use to select commissioners, who will represent Missouri in any Article V convention of states meeting. The House version is HB836, and the Senate version is SB231. Both issues have support in the legislature, but it’s our responsibility to engage with our legislators and ensure these critical resolutions are addressed and passed in this session, as well.
When discussing Article V we know there are challenges. First up, describing what the Article V process is and how it works is paramount. Next, we must differentiate between the Convention of States Project proposal and other Article V efforts. Comparison/contrast makes it easy. So, let’s compare the COS proposal with other Article V efforts.
Let’s start with the Citizens United court decision, which reversed established campaign finance restrictions. Citizens United determined that corporate spending on political issues and candidate campaigns is an exercise of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Article V effort to change this has slowly dwindled, because proponents of large government have advanced their agenda through the government and the courts by benefitting from the status quo. They’ve also found that following the Constitution is too time-consuming.
Another Article V effort is focused on imposing term limits on Congress. With Congress’s approval rating in the single digits, this is an attractive issue. However, there are a few problems with taking a term-limits-only approach.
For instance, even we send “good people” to D.C., they are corrupted or constrained by the establishment. Technically we can impose term limits at the ballot box, but incumbents are re-elected more than 85 percent of the time. The power of incumbency squeezes out challengers.
Since the 1970s, the effort to enact a balanced budget amendment has failed. The effort came within a handful of states convening a convention of states meeting in the early 1980s.
There’s been a renewed effort to move for an interstate compact to adopt a balanced budget amendment. However, the Constitution mandates that any interstate compact must have the approval of Congress. So, this effort relies on Congress to agree to limit their own spending authority. This is unlikely and defies human behavior. Adopting a balanced budget amendment alone without limiting the federal government’s decision-making ability, limitations on taxation, and using real math to add up the numbers is insufficient and dangerous.
The Convention of States Action resolution is different. Most people agree that D.C. does too much, spends too much, and stays there too long. Only the COS proposal addresses all three of these issues. If we limit congressional terms without limiting the decisions they make, not much will change. If we have a balanced budget without limiting what D.C. does, the federal government can simply shift more costs to the states.
These issues of term limits and a balanced budget can both be discussed at a COS meeting called under our resolution. Being able to address all the problems our federal government continues to cause provides us the best opportunity to return the federal government to its constitutional box.
I hope this helps explain the differences in the various Article V efforts being undertaken. The only way this will happen is if people like you and me encourage our legislators to act.
We are actively making our legislators aware of the legislation before them. We also are asking them to consider co-sponsoring the House versions. We’re asking Senators for their support as that chamber does not have a process for co-sponsoring.
Tune in to our next statewide call on February 15 in which we’ll discuss approaching your legislators and asking for their support.
In liberty,
Brett
Past Blog Posts
