A misguided opinion piece titled, “Push for ‘Convention of States’ makes some Ohioans feel edgy and suspicious” was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer on July 11, 2024. It was written by Enquirer Columnist Dan Sewell.
In response to Sewell's piece, the following letter to the editor was submitted on July 18 by COS Ohio District Captain Roger Gibb:
I read with interest Dan Sewell’s July 11 opinion piece titled “Push for ‘Convention of States’ makes some Ohioans feel edgy and suspicious.” The article carried overtones of uncertainty and foreboding regarding a Turtlecreek Township meeting that included a discussion of “Convention of States.” Uncertainty feeds on a lack of information, so allow me to share a few facts and clear the air.
I was one of the 10 visitors who attended that June 10, 7:00 pm meeting to speak with the Board of Trustees. Three of us spoke with prepared remarks, but others shared their views extemporaneously.
We met with the Board of Trustees to request that they consider passing a non-binding resolution requesting that the Ohio general assembly support Ohio House Joint Resolution 3 (HJR-3) that requests an Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments to the US Constitution in 3 subject areas: 1) Greater fiscal responsibility, 2) term limits on federal officials, including Congress, and 3) restraint of federal overreach. Other Warren County municipal government councils have recently passed similar resolutions, including Wayne, Hamilton and Deerfield Townships.
It turns out that the idea of states amending the Constitution to achieve common sense reform is popular with Ohioans. To be specific, a 2024 Susquehanna poll of registered/likely Ohio voters taken earlier this year found that 76% of Ohioans across all parties support the Convention of States movement and its mission to “rein in” the federal government.
The type of common-sense amendments that could potentially be proposed by a Convention of States include the following:
- Balanced budget with taxation cap (Polls show ~75% public support.)
- Term limits on the US Congress (Polls show ~75% public support.)
- One subject, one bill (no more omnibus pork barrel spending bills)
- Joint jurisdiction to federal and state governments for US border enforcement
- Apportion House Representatives on US citizens only, i.e. not on illegal immigrants
Of course, for any of these proposals to become part of the US Constitution, it would have to first be ratified by 38 state legislatures.
Mr. Sewell said that “there are many questions about how a [convention of states] would actually work and whether it could get out of control in trying to change the Constitution.” I am happy to report that those questions have been thoroughly answered by two of our nation’s most respected and experienced constitutional scholars, Professor Robert G. Natelson and Michael Farris.
Natelson and Farris have collectively published 6 articles totaling more than 300 pages in peer-reviewed law journals in the past 20 years to resolve every reasonable question about the safety and operations of an Article V amendment proposing convention. To the best of my knowledge, no scholarly rebuttal in a comparable peer-reviewed law journal has ever been published to refute any of their conclusions.
To anyone who wishes to delve deeper into HJR-3 currently under consideration by the Ohio House of Representatives, please consider watching the proponent testimony offered earlier this year. Also, visit www.conventionofstates.com.
Not surprisingly, facts can do wonders to address “edgy and suspicious” feelings.
