Ohio legislature rolls the dice with your freedom
A Convention of States could result in catastrophic changes to our Constitution.
A Convention of States—also called a Constitutional Convention—could result in catastrophic changes to our Constitution. And our freedom
Yet seven republican state legislators from Ohio have introduced six bills and resolutions calling for such a convention “under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.”
These legislators must be educated and this movement must be stopped.
Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 6, introduced by Sens. Theresa Gavarone (R-2) and Jane Timken (R-29), calls for a "limited national convention" under Article V to propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on U.S. senators and congressmen. “Limited,” in the bill, suggests that Ohio’s delegates to a convention would be restricted to acting only on the term limit proposal.
However, under Article V, there is no such thing as a "limited" national convention.
It is imaginary.
Once such a convention is convened, the delegates make the rules. There is nothing in the Constitution that would compel delegates to consider "only" a term limit amendment as suggested by SJR 6 and other legislation.
It is naive and dangerous.
As the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it, "I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean, whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?"
Later, Scalia reaffirmed, “A constitutional convention is a horrible idea.”
Article V
I’m not sure how these legislators conjured the “limited convention” idea.
Following is the totality of Article V. One needn’t be a Constitutional scholar to understand it.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
That’s it.
There is no language that addresses what the delegates can or cannot discuss once convened. There is no language that addresses a "limited convention."
It doesn't exist.
Never done before
As defined above, Article V provides two ways in which the Constitution can be amended. To date, all 27 Constitutional amendments have been proposed using the first method—by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.
The second way is for the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments.” That method has never been used since the Constitution was adopted 237 years ago.
There is a good reason why it hasn’t.
A "runaway" convention—where delegates begin to propose their own amendments—could radically alter the Constitution. Article V offers no limitation as to what amendments may be proposed at the convention. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger is among the many Constitutional scholars who have been clear on that.
“After a convention is convened,” Burger wrote, “it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
Berger, Scalia and many other constitutional scholars have opined that once a convention is convened, the delegates are not obliged to comply with any limitations or instructions. The delegates would make the rules and the convention would become a free for all.
That’s exactly what happened in Philadelphia in 1787 when a convention was convened to tweak the Articles of Confederation. We ended up with a brand new Constitution.
And who would appoint the delegates to the convention?
Grassroots conservative citizens?
Or establishment politicians like Gov. Mike DeWine? Would you trust DeWine’s appointees to represent you at a convention where the U.S. Constitution could be altered?
Naively, proponents of a Convention of States suggest that a state’s delegate to the convention can be removed by the state if he or she “goes rogue” and doesn’t follow instructions given by the state. However, 49 other state delegations will be a part of the convention. Ohio’s delegation can go home in protest of an undesirable amendment, and the train can derail without them.
Nobody can say whether a Convention of States would backfire and eliminate the protection of our God given freedom. But we can say that it could backfire.
That’s not a gamble that I’m comfortable with.
The legislation
Here are the Convention of States bills and resolutions currently before the Ohio legislature. I encourage you to download and read these bills and resolutions and contact the sponsors, your senator and representative, and the committee chairmen to express your views about a Convention of States.
SJR-3: Apply to Congress: Constitutional Convention for certain purposes
Sen. Michele Reynolds (R-3), 614-466-8064, reynolds@ohiosenate.gov
Sen. George Lang (R-4), 614-466-8072, lang@ohiosenate.gov
Assigned to General Government Committee chaired by Sen. Kristina Roegner (R-27), 614-466-4823, roegner@ohiosenate.gov
Application to the Congress of the United States for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States that is limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress.
SJR-6: Apply for Convention of the States re: term limits
Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-2), 614-466-8060, gavarone@ohiosenate.gov
Sen. Jane Timken (R-29), 614-466-0626, timken@ohiosenate.gov
Assigned to Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee chaired by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-12), 614-466-7584, manchester@ohiosenate.gov
Applying to the Congress of the United States for a limited national convention for the exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to establish term limits for members of Congress.
HJR-2: Applies to Congress for a Convention of the States
Rep. Riordan McClain (R-87), 614-644-6265, Rep87@ohiohouse.gov
Rep. Bernard Willis (R-74), 614-466-2038, Rep74@ohiohouse.gov
Assigned to House Government Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Thomas Hall (R-46), 614-644-5094, Rep46@ohiohouse.gov
Application to the Congress of the United States for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States that is limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress.
HJR-3: Apply for Convention of the States re: term limits
Rep. Heidi Workman (R-72), 614-466-2004, rep72@ohiohouse.gov
Nine co-sponsors
Assigned to House Government Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Thomas Hall (R-46), 614-644-5094, Rep46@ohiohouse.gov
Applying to the Congress of the United States for a limited national convention for the exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to establish term limits for members of Congress.
Rep. Riordan McClain (R-87), 614-644-6265, Rep87@ohiohouse.gov
Rep. Bernard Willis (R-74), 614-466-2038, Rep74@ohiohouse.gov
Five co-sponsors
Assigned to House Government Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Thomas Hall (R-46), 614-644-5094, Rep46@ohiohouse.gov
To establish procedures for appointing delegates to a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution.
Sen. Michele Reynolds (R-3), 614-466-8064, reynolds@ohiosenate.gov
Sen. George Lang (R-4), 614-466-8072, lang@senate.ohio.gov
Assigned to General Government Committee chaired by Sen. Kristina Roegner (R-27), 614-466-4823, roegner@ohiosenate.gov
To establish procedures for appointing delegates to a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution.
It is sad how some people attempt to display their knowledge of something yet fail to do so. But also trip over themselves in the process.
• True, “Article V, there is no such thing as a "limited" national convention”. Nor does it say they could take a break and have some burgers.
• You stated, “A Convention of States—also called a Constitutional Convention”. Calling something by a name does not make it so. If you will research, The Constitutional Convention was the result of an attempt to amend the Articles of Confederation. There was only one. Which were so inadequate and deemed needed to be replaced. Even then, the proposals were voted on BEFORE becoming our Constitution.
• “To date, all 27 Constitutional amendments have been proposed using the first method—by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.” One path travelled does not negate the second. “The second way is for the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments.”” Did you notice the part about proposing amendments? By the way, that is exactly what the first path does too.
• “That method has never been used since the Constitution was adopted 237 years ago.” Meaning it should never be used? What else do you propose we disregard?
• “A "runaway" convention”. You mean like a truck down a hill? The runaway is the bovine biomass spewed in this article. Fear mongering can be another runaway. You are perpetuating a 237-year-old fear. What other boogie men are in your closet?
Here are some facts for you to consider. The States created the Federal government via the Constitution. The grassroots (We The People) that you appear to be trying to belittle are very interested in using the second path since the Congress of the first path are the runaway. Leave fear in the shadows and lets wear in the second path so it can never again be said that it has never been used!
Mr. McEntee,
I have read the other comments and there is no use to repeat them as I agree with all who have posted ahead of me. I also appreciate that you responded courteously. I have 2 pressing concerns as I react to your article, where I take exception on numerous points:
First, nearly all liberty-loving people must certainly agree that our federal government is a mess. We want to fix the most egregious problems permanently via the States proposing amendments under Article V (as congress will not do it); we simply cannot run the country with executive orders. The second method of Article V has not been done, but 38 states must ratify anything that is proposed at the convention. Only death is certain, but I am more willing to risk the Article V constitutional method where I can hold my state legislators accountable than any other solution I have heard anyone propose - are we so gripped by fear that we are impotent to do anything?
Secondly, you appear to be citizen who is willing to spend your valuable time getting involved in government problem-solving. I ask you to please be proud of your own scholarship/research and stop propagating the Justice Scalia lie. It is totally taken out of context and, as such, is just wrong. You will be doing yourself justice and speaking the truth to, at the very least, remove the Justice Scalia example from your thinking, even if you will not change your opinion on any of the other statements you make on this subject. Respectfully, Virginia L Morgan