The U.S. Constitution wasn’t born out of chaos or reckless ambition. Yet, critics love to paint the 1787 Constitutional Convention as a "runaway" convention, a rogue assembly that defied its mandate and went too far. Michael Farris, a constitutional scholar and advocate for the Article V Convention of States process, dismantles this narrative with precision. He argues that far from running wild, the convention followed its authority, relied on democratic legitimacy, and responded to a national crisis that demanded bold action.
I want to show you why Farris thinks this “runaway” label doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
The core argument towards the 1787 Convention being “runaway” is that it exceeded its authority. Farris flips this claim on its head by showing how the delegates operated within a framework of appointed powers.
We need to keep in mind that The Articles of Confederation were crumbling under the weight of their flaws, no power to tax, no centralized authority, and no real way to solve disputes between states. In 1787, Congress passed a resolution authorizing a convention to "revise the Articles of Confederation" and propose changes to improve the government. Farris points out that this language wasn’t restrictive. The goal was clear: fix what was broken, even if that meant sweeping reform.
Several states, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, sent delegates with clear instructions to consider structural reforms. Virginia’s delegates brought the Virginia Plan, a blueprint for a stronger federal government. Farris highlights that most states truly wanted a viable solution, not minor tweaks. Critics who insist the convention defied its mandate ignore the political will behind the delegates’ instructions.
Farris also argues that legitimacy doesn’t just come from following orders, it comes from public consent. The 1787 Convention wasn’t a “runaway” because it put its work before the ultimate authority: the American people (exactly like an Article V Convention of today would!).
Instead of enforcing their proposals, the delegates sent the Constitution to special ratification conventions in each state. This wasn’t just a formality. The people, through their elected representatives, debated the new framework. Farris emphasizes that this process made the Constitution’s adoption a democratic decision was not at all an elite power grab.
Once the Constitution was written, nine out of the thirteen states had to ratify it for it to take effect (Exactly like any “proposed” amendments from an Article V Convention of today would. Are you seeing the theme here?). This super majority requirement ensured the new government had broad support. By meeting this threshold, Farris argues, the convention proved its legitimacy. If it had truly been a runaway convention, it wouldn’t have gained the trust of the people or their representatives.
Critics appear to regularly forget the dire state of the union in 1787. Farris sets the convention itself in its historical and procedural context, showing how its actions aligned with precedent and necessity.
Let’s be real here folks, the Articles of Confederation couldn’t hold the country together. The national government had no power to enforce laws, regulate trade, or fund itself. Interstate conflicts and foreign threats loomed large. Farris argues that the convention’s bold proposals weren’t overreach at all, instead they were a response to a crisis of survival.
Colonial assemblies and earlier conventions often exceeded narrow mandates when faced with existential challenges. The Declaration of Independence itself was the product of a convention that took bold, unexpected steps. Farris sees the 1787 Convention as part of this tradition: responsible leaders taking action when the stakes were high.
Farris doesn’t mince words when critiquing the “runaway” narrative. He sees it as a distortion based on contemporary misunderstandings of the convention’s purpose and actions.
Opponents often argue that the convention was only supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, not replace them. But Farris highlights how the Congressional resolution and state instructions gave the delegates room to innovate. The critics’ narrow interpretation ignores the flexibility built into these authorizations.
Farris also points out that the convention wasn’t a power grab by a small faction. The 55 delegates, representing a wide range of states and perspectives, debated every proposal thoroughly. This was a collaborative process, not the work of a reckless minority.
Why This Matters Today: Lessons for Article V Conventions
Farris’ defense of the 1787 Convention isn’t just historical trivia. It’s part of his broader case for using Article V of the Constitution to hold modern conventions for proposing amendments. Critics of the Article V process often fear that such conventions could spiral out of control and that the “Radical Left Wing” would infiltrate and force unwanted and unintended consequences. Farris draws on history to show why those fears are misplaced.
The Article V process requires state legislatures to set the agenda and select delegates. Plus, any amendments proposed by a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Farris argues that these safeguards make it virtually impossible for a modern convention to go rogue as groups such as “The John Birch Society” often suggest.
The 1787 Convention set the gold standard for responsible action in times of crisis. Farris believes it’s a powerful example of how conventions can tackle systemic problems while staying within legal and procedural bounds. I shouldn’t need to say, it but folks, we are in a time of crisis!
The 1787 Convention Was No “Runaway”
Michael Farris makes a compelling case: the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wasn’t a rogue operation; it was a principled response to an urgent national crisis. Delegates operated within their authority, submitted their work to the people, and built a government that’s lasted for almost two and a half centuries and, while currently under attack, is still going strong. Far from a cautionary tale, the convention is a blueprint for how bold, democratic action can solve our deep-seated problems.
If we’re serious about addressing the constitutional challenges of today, we should learn from the history Michael Farris defends. The founding fathers didn’t shy away from difficult decisions and neither should we!
About Michael Farris: Farris is a distinguished constitutional scholar, attorney, and advocate for religious liberty and constitutional reform. He is the founder of both the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College, where he has educated and mentored in constitutional law and policy. Farris holds a Juris Doctor degree with honors from Gonzaga University and an LL.M. in Public International Law from the University of London. A hardened litigator, he has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal and state courts. Farris is also a prolific author, having written extensively on constitutional law, American history, and the Article V Convention of States process. Folks, this guy knows his stuff!
Just Sayin…
