The following is a Letter to the Editor to correct misinformation of a previous published article. We must watch our local newspapers for misinformation articles and reply with a reply letter to the Editor. Here is a response written by Angie Watt, one of our COS Florida members.
In response to the letter written by Bill Claustre stating that Article V convention is reckless and that there is nothing in Article V which authorizes Congress, state legislatures or anyone else to limit the agenda of such a convention: This is not true.
According to the Convention of States website: The text of the Constitution itself clearly indicates that a convention can be limited in at least some ways. For instance, a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments.” ... Thus, even an “unlimited” convention is limited in this critical respect. ... It also goes on to state: “There can be no question that certain topics are off-limits for a convention, since Article V itself imposes those limitations. That state legislatures may further limit the authority of a convention is shown by the historical practice and purpose behind Article V.”
Mr. Claustre also claimed “that if delegates are ever to convene, they will be answerable only to themselves, and the end product that emerges could be radically different from what many of the delegates may have envisioned.” This is also untrue.
Delegates are limited by the scope of their proposal and the instructions of the state. If they decided to change the proposal, there are safety measures that would kick in. Some states have prison sentences for those who veer from the intent of the proposal. Congress ... has to determine the mode of ratification, so if they believe the amendment is outside of the convention’s power, they will not designate a mode of ratification and it will most likely go to court.
Also, once an amendment is ratified, it still has to be approved by 38 states. So if the end product is radically different from what was originally envisioned, what are the chances that 38 states would still approve it?
The convention of states is in the Constitution for a reason. The founders envisioned a time when the elected officials would not listen to the people. There are a few wildly popular ideas that cross both aisles: A balanced budget amendment and term limits, for example, which Congress hates because it limits their power.
I think this is exactly the time a convention of states is needed so that power could return to the states and be removed from the federal government. More information is available at www.conventionofstates.com
Learn. Grow. Join. Lead.
