In this three-part series Kira Gilbert interviews Convention of States Washington State Director Eric Minor as to his impressions on how reducing the power and jurisdiction of the federal government through a Convention of States would affect Washington State residents. Part 1 is why enacting such restraints are important for the people of Washington. Part 2 will discuss a specific hypothetical amendment, and Part 3 will take that hypothetical amendment to its possible effect on an actual federal agency’s actions in Washington.
KG: We’re back with Eric Minor. One of the major goals of Convention of States Action is to get enough pressure on enough state legislatures across the country to pass the model resolution (available on this website).
That resolution, (by imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress), is aimed at reducing the power and scope of the federal government on the states.
If we achieve the passing of the model resolution in 19 more states, Congress will be constitutionally required to call a Convention of States. At the convention, state commissioners will have the opportunity to regain much of their power vis-à-vis the federal government that has been lost over the last century.
As State Director, one of your jobs is to educate people about not only the facts but the myths surrounding COS. So, what's the number one misconception people have here in Washington about Convention of States?
EM: It's the same misconception in Washington state that is probably more broadly misunderstood across the entire country: that is that it will be a “runaway convention.”
The arguments come from both the left and the right. From the right, let’s start with the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum. Those groups both claim it will be a runaway convention. I don't know if they really believe that, or if it’s just their leadership’s talking points, but in their minds, it will progress as follows: the convention will be called, it will be called to order, and then shortly thereafter it will be taken over by entities that have ill-intent. Whether it is George Soros or some other bogeyman taking it over is open to interpretation, but their assertion is that the Constitution will be rewritten in whole to fundamentally alter its nature, whether that be ushering in communism/socialism or some other bad idea not related to the limited topics we have stipulated.
This is, of course, preposterous. There are numerous short, well-researched, simple-to-understand articles that rebut this contention, many of them available on our website. We’ve actually had quite a few interstate conventions in American history, both pre- and post-revolution, and all of those conventions have stuck to the topic that they were called about.
So, all of the prior precedent indicates that the convention will stay on topic. Prof. Robert G. Natelson’s 2018 book The Law of Article V does a great job of detailing the history of interstate conventions in American history.
I think that even in the worst case--which I don't believe for one second would come to pass--but even if the convention did go off the rails, it wouldn't lead to any of those terrible results. The convention is only the first phase.
There is a second, completely separate phase to getting the amendments into the Constitution. Thirty-four states are needed to call the convention. But then an even greater number--38 states--are needed to ratify any amendment. That’s a very effective fail-safe.
If by some unprecedented miracle some bad actors were able to hijack the convention, they’d still need for three-quarters of the state legislatures (both chambers in each state) to go along with the hijack.
KG: Yes, so when they say things like “an Article V constitutional convention is a dangerous path that puts all of our cherished rights, civil liberties, and freedoms at risk--"
EM: That's false, because it takes that second ratification step to get anything into the Constitution.
What they also like to argue to bolster this runaway convention assertion is this notion that somehow the original Constitutional Convention in 1787 was illegally called, and that it went off the rails and did something that it wasn't supposed to do. It's false, and there’s a great video discussion by our co-founder Dr. Michael Farris on our website at COS University that completely debunks it.
KG: Okay. Now let’s turn to our hypothetical. What if we were successful? What if we could limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government? Is there a specific federal agency that we could eliminate?
EM: A great possibility is the Department of Education. We had no Department of Education in America for about 200 years from 1776 until 1979 when the Carter administration put it in place. Prior to that, education was fully within the purview of the states and, more frequently, mostly handled at a local level.
I was in grade school in the 1970s, and my educational experience was quite good. Local jurisdictions are perfectly capable of educating their children without the federal government getting involved. Three or four decades into this federal intrusion into education, and I think a lot of people would opine that our educational system has probably declined. Back 40 years ago, when I was going to grade school, America's education system was the envy of the entire world.
But you involve the federal government in it, and it just starts going downhill. So yeah, of all the federal agencies, the first I would nominate for elimination would be the Department of Education.
KG: What could Washington State parents expect that would be different for them going forward, if the Department of Education were eliminated?
EM: An example of federal policy affecting Washington is Common Core. But there are others. Theoretically the states can always decide not to follow federal guidelines, but the actual way things are structured with federal funding frequently makes it almost impossible.
They just attach funding to it, and it makes it really difficult not to accept that money. They're going to lose out on tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. It almost seems like it’s a kind of free federal money. But of course, it's not federal money. All of that money comes from the states.
And so, people from Washington State send their money to Washington, D.C., and then they get a big chunk of that back for education spending, but now it has strings attached. Basically, if we didn't have the Department of Education, that money would just stay right here in Washington State, and we could utilize it for education as we see fit.
KG: Well, it sounds like it's an issue of local freedom and the freedom of the people who live there to make the choices about where their children go to school.
EM: That's right, where they go to school and what they're taught.
