South Dakota Surge Article

“Just a Little Cowboy Logic”

“Cowboy Logic” can be described as applying fundamental truth in simple profound terms; a byword describing that element of basic common sense that speaks to the soul in most of us, whether we choose to yield or resist. It is the light that shines on the war between simple truth and complicated deception.

Legislation calling for a convention of the states in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States will be introduced in the 2024 South Dakota Legislature. Article V empowers the states to come together to consider and propose needed amendments subject to ratification by at least ¾ of all the states.

Predictably, strange bedfellows Common Cause and the John Birch Society are desperate to hide this power from the legislators and divert the conversation. They attempt to move our eye off the truth, hanging their arguments on the hollow idea of a “runaway convention.” 

A logical question demands a logical answer: Is a runaway convention even possible? To answer that, one must contrast the basic facts of Article V against the fallacies promoted by Common Cause and its erstwhile cohorts.

34 state legislatures, all resolving to the same purpose, can affect the call for a convention of all 50 states to, in this case, discuss [1] imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, [2] limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and [3] limiting the terms of office for its officials and for Members of Congress.”

Any amendment proposed outside these specific topics would be considered rogue, violating the declared purpose of the convention and making those rogue commissioners subject to recall by their legislatures.

BUT WHAT IF commissioners introduce a rogue proposal, yet avoid being recalled by their own states?

• The convention will challenge introduction of any rogue proposal violating the declared scope of the convention (in this case, fiscal restraint, government over-reach, term limits). 

BUT WHAT IF rogue commissioners introduce a rogue proposal without getting recalled, the convention does not reject it, and it is allowed to be deliberated on the floor of the convention?

• One state, one vote. The commissioners representing at least 26 states would have to go rogue to pass the proposal.

BUT WHAT IF a rogue commissioner introduces a rogue proposal, the convention violates its own purpose by not rejecting it, the commissioners from at least 26 states go rogue to vote in favor, ignoring the declared purpose of the convention and the legislatures that sent them, and those commissioners are not recalled by their respective state legislatures? AND WHAT IF lawsuits fail to be filed, and the courts fail to intervene by any other manner?

• Congress would have no duty to send any illicit proposal to the states for ratification.

BUT WHAT IF rogue commissioners actually introduce a rogue amendment proposal; the convention actually breaks its own rules by not rejecting it; those commissioners actually avoid being recalled by their respective state legislatures; commissioners from at least 26 states actually go rogue to vote in favor, violating the declared purpose of the convention and the instructions of their respective legislatures; no lawsuits are filed; no courts intervene; and Congress illegally presents it to the states for ratification without legal challenge?

• It is not an amendment unless it is ratified by the states. A “rogue” amendment proposal created by rogue commissioners representing at least 26 states, not having been quashed by the convention, nor intervened by the legislatures, nor enjoined by the courts, must be presented to all 50 states, of which at least three fourths (38) are necessary for ratification. This means 13 states can block ratification of any proposed amendment.

BUT WHAT IF Congress inserts itself into the process?

• It can’t. The Constitution assigns only a limited ministerial role to Congress. They would be stopped dead in their tracks by the convention itself and/or by the courts. Congress has no power in the process (“State of Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107, 1154 (D. Idaho 1981). There is no pathway for Congress to insert itself.   

There is also no pathway for the convention to exceed its authority. It cannot invent its own power, it cannot depart from the purposes declared by the resolutions of the states, and it cannot override the Constitution.

Is a runaway convention possible? The answer is an obvious resounding NO. The “runaway convention” theory is an unsupportable myth, advanced not by grassroots citizens, but rather by organized pressure groups with their own self-serving political and financial agendas.                         

SO, WHAT IF a convention of the states is not called?  

• In the 3½ minutes it took you to read this letter, the $33.5 TRILLION national debt (124% of Gross National Product) has grown by $6,700,000, not including unfunded liabilities.

•  The burden on each man, woman & child in America equals $99,848 ($258,257 on each household).  

• By 2030 (less than 2 election cycles), the national debt will have reached an unsustainable and economically disastrous 200% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.  

• The country’s economic capacity to overcome this fiscal catastrophe continues to be stifled by broad federal overreach, much of it reflected in unreasonable demands on individuals, businesses, and local governments.

• The administrative state will continue to grow and exert arbitrary power over the people, corroding the general welfare, until the freedom of the American people is ultimately strangled.

• A self-serving Congress, more interested in political careers than citizen service, refuses to address any of it.  

AND WHAT IF the 2023 New Mexico Legislature fails to act?  

• This is NOT a Democrat vs Republican issue. It will be a bi-partisan opportunity lost, and the interests of the people of New Mexico will not be protected. Unaccountable federal overreach and out-of-control spending damage every New Mexican and impair every legitimate public initiative, with zero respect toward political viewpoint.  

Keep in mind the state legislatures control the process. When the detractors do their accusing, they are not making their claim against the people in the Convention of States movement. Their attack is not against the thousands of South Dakota citizens calling for a convention, or the 2 ½ million petition signers and 5 million supporters across the country. Common Cause et al, by their own words, are pointing their finger at each of you as honored members of the South Dakota Legislature, at your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and at your legislative counterparts across the nation.

Common Cause et al, by their own words, are saying you lack the competence to organize and conduct a convention, you lack the judgment to send serious commissioners, and you lack the character to do it with integrity.

We in the Convention of States movement disagree. The power given by the Constitution to each of you as a state legislator is placed exactly where it should be.

So, just apply a little plain old cowboy logic. When the folks of Common Cause et al tell you how risky and corrupt a convention might be, ask them why they think so little of you, the work you do, and the trust placed in you by the people of South Dakota.

South Dakota is required by its constitution to balance its budget every year, yet federal spending continues wildly out of control with no prospects of abatement (https://usadebtclock.com). Too many federal officials ensconce and enrich themselves in long and sometimes corrupt careers, locking out worthy South Dakota leaders from the opportunity to serve at the national level (https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~prb/congressional-term-limits-are-the-key-to-maintaining-our-democracy/). South Dakota’s local governments, small businesses, and hard-working families are often damaged by federal over-extension of authority.

Any honest discussion compels four questions: 

1. Are you in favor of, or opposed to, unrestrained spending by Congress? 
2. Are you in favor of, or opposed to, unaccountable federal overreach?  
3. Are you in favor of a professionalized career congress, or term-limited citizen service? 
4. Can you expect, or not expect, Congress to address these issues? 

Answers to these questions by K-Street special interest groups opposing a convention of the states can be predicted. They do not want limitations on the federal government, because that is where they derive their own power.  The state legislatures, on the other hand, are given the real power to rein in the federal government.

A majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want an Article V convention of the states (https://conventionofstates.com/files/the-trafalgar-group-full-report-july-2022), and nineteen states have already passed resolutions calling for it. Bi-partisan support of a resolution here in New Mexico will send the signal that our legislature is looking out for our families and businesses.

The language in Article V is clear and concise. The states have the authority to convene and consider proposals to be sent back out for ratification. If Common Cause et al actually has sound arguments against the specific purposes of a convention, they should be made and debated. If all Common Cause has to offer is fear and suspicion, they have no argument. If there is something real in their grievance portfolio to talk about, then our challenge to them is lay it on the table and let’s have the conversation.

Fear sells. Fear rallies uninformed support, raises money, and bullies the timid. Fear does NOT reason nor make credible arguments.

Simple “cowboy logic” tells us it is time to pass a resolution calling for a Convention of the States.