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!
Happily, I agree with you: it is sad how some people attempt to display their knowledge of something yet fail to do so.
No, if you read my words, I am not trying to belittle the grassroots. In fact I am a part of the grassroots and I advocate for our empowerment, not for our belittlement.
I won't get into your attempt to disparage my character—suggesting boogie men in my closet—in lieu of a rational retort.
But I do appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I will note that both comments so far, George (District Captain and State Information Analyst, Convention of States Michigan) and Diana (State Communications Coordinator, Convention of States Ohio), have come from people who have, or had direct affiliations working for the Convention of States Action organizations—the primary advocates for a convention—so I'll look forward to fielding comments from more people from within your organization.
I will also note for your consideration, that I have attempted to organize a rational debate about a convention of states, with pro and con perspectives represented, as there are people whom I respect who do not agree with me on this issue. If such a debate takes place I hope your side would be represented by somebody who can present their case rationally.
I will say that maybe "belittle" was not the best choice of words. My intent was more that the John Birch Society approach comes as though the Founders having included the second part, were trying to commit subversion or at least provide for it. I do enjoy a good debate if both sides are speaking from a platform of truth, hence the boogie man reference. In fact, the Society platform you seem to be emulating was hijacked from Mr. Welch. He in fact had proposed the use of the second part of Article V himself.
Should I consider it an honor that you took the time to research who George Moorman is. Had you been serious enough, you might have discovered there are at least four people using such a name. Obviously, you have decided you have properly identified the correct one, or have you? A presumption on your part?
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
Thank you Ginnie, Ohio State Grassroots Coordinator.
If it weren't from you folks who work for the Convention of States I would think nobody is reading my Substack...which is generally true. Perhaps I might convince you buy a paid subscription, and maybe a few for your friends.
One of your colleagues just challenged me as well about Scalia with a quote that the justice gave eight years after his death, and one, by the way, that seemed to generally reinforce my position. However, I will check on it.
Thank you for not repeating what your colleagues already wrote. Article V itself is only 142 words and doesn't require a Constitution scholar to interpret, no offense to Michael Ferris. So thank you for being economical in your words.
A state amending convention under Article V is clearly not asking to “open up” or “rewrite” the Constitution. It is not a Constitutional Convention, nor would the Founders have built Article V into the Constitution if it were "naive" or "dangerous." A quick read of Article V verbiage makes it clear the states can propose amendments to THIS Constitution. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise. The resolutions filed in Ohio merely request an opportunity for the states to collectively propose amendments in convention. Once proposed, 38 states must ratify and proposed any amendment (the same standard as Congress) that make it out of the convention. The passage of Article V legislation in Ohio is far too important to allow the meaning of these resolutions to be overshadowed by your doomsday language designed to impart fear. Since you are making very serious allegations here, it would behoove you, Mr. McEntee, to note that HB-67 and SB-112 is faithful delegate legislation that addresses very specifically how delegates will be chosen in any Article V convention. And no, the governor is not part of that process.
Thank you for your opinion. I didn't say the governor is a part of the process. He is referenced as an example of the type of undesirable politician who could be a part of the delegation. I appreciate your feedback.
I believe the author has confused Constitutional Convention with a Convention of States . They are not the same thing . Consider a dump truck and car both are vehicles but serve different functions. The difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention is that a Constitutional Conventions objective is to create a new government where as an Article V Convention works within the limits of the existing Constitution.
You said: "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."
I say: Nobody can say whether you are are an alien from Jupiter. But we can say that you could be.
This whole article is nothing but fear mongering, lack of research and perhaps flat out lying. For example, perhaps you should have included the whole Scalia quote rather than the cherry picked snippet that supports your arguement? Here is what you said about Scalia:
"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.”"
Scalia actually said:
"I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean, whoa, who knows what would come out of that, but if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, I think the only provision I would amend is the amendment provision. I figured out at one time what percentage of the populous could prevent an amendment to the constitution and if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population I think something less than 2% of the people can prevent a constitutional amendment. It oughta be hard, but it shouldn't be that hard"
-National Press Club (2024, April 17).
You either cherry picked what you wanted which is dishonest, or you did no real research to learn the facts. Clearly Scallia distinguishes between a Constitutional Convention and an Atricle V Convention. Ohio legislators are notcalling for a Constitutional Convention, they are calling to invoke article V calling for a Convention of States which is limited in the article V language to proposing amendments to 'this constitution.' FYI If you still doubt Scalia's support of an Article V Convention I did a little research for you. Here is another Scalia Quote:
"I have not proposed an open convention. Nobody in his right mind would propose it in preference to a convention limited to those provisions he wants changed. .... It is not much of a risk. Three-quarters of the states would have to ratify whatever came out of the convention; therefore, I don't worry about it too much. ... I really want to see the the process used responsible on a serious issue so that the shibboleth-the Richard Rovere alarm about the end of the world-can be put to rest and we can learn how to use the process responsibly in the future"
-Daly, John Charles (1979, May 23). A Constitutional Convention: How Well
Would it Work? Edited Transcript of The American Enterprise Institute for
Thank you Ed, Regional Captain, Region 4, Central Ohio, Convention of States Action.
I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my article.
I will read your entire reply as time permits, but suggesting that I am dishonest doesn't give me much motivation to engage in dialogue with you.
But I am curious as to the medium through which Scalia addressed the National Press Club on April 17, 2024. He actually died in 2016, so I'm thinking that if he addressed the Press Club with some divine wisdom he acquired from the angels, that might move me over to your side of the debate.
On the other hand, the fact that he would amend the amendment provision (Article V) kind of reinforced my argument that it is problematic.
Allow me to correct some GRAVE misunderstandings in this article.
First, 1787 was not an Article V convention. At the time, the fed gov was provided powers by the States via the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles gave Congress no power to call a convention. Virginia called a convention of States for the purpose of "rendering the constitution adequate for the republic". All commissioners sent were held faithful to the call by their individual States. While Congress did offer an opinion about the subject of the convention, their opinion was superfluous... just as it would be for ANY state convention called by the States. The fact that the Statesmen were within their proper powers was discussed repeatedly during the convention. There were some commissioners who couldn't sign off on the constitution, because their States had limited the subject, so they didn't. However, ultimately, even those States ratified the Constitution, because it was good... and is good, in large part due to Article V which has allowed amendments, over time.
Second, Article V is clear... the convention can ONLY PROPOSE AMENDMENTS. The convention will not have the power to change the Constitution and most certainly doesn't have the power to completely overwrite it. Any amendments PROPOSED by the convention will face the high bar of needing approval by 75% of the States in order to become added as official amendments to our Constitution.
Third, opponents (like this—perhaps even well-meaning) who claim Article V and the Constitution don't describe how the convention is limited are ignoring history. Note that the Constitution also does not describe how to provide due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments mention due process... yet, no description of how to achieve it. But, via historical precedence, we know exactly how it works. That is the same for conventions of the states. Every convention of the states, throughout history, has functioned the same way—the States defined the subject (limit for the convention) via The Application, the States choose the commissioners, the commissioners vote on the chair and structure of the convention, and, in every single 42+ convention, not once did a convention "runaway" and every single time each state received one vote (honoring our republic by giving smaller states equal representation).
Fifth, Congress not only has the ability to propose amendments whenever they want, but they also use interpretations based on new definitions of words (words like "commerce" and "general welfare") to create loopholes so they can overstay, overreach, overtax, and overspend. They'll NEVER stop themselves.
In closing, I pray you do not (like this opponent) fall for the fear mongering. Article V is, in fact, the constitutional method, provided by our founders, for the States to CHECK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. By letting our state legislators know that we DO want an Article V convention of states to LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, we can save our republic from the communists attempting to wrestle it from us.
Encourage your legislators to VOTE YES ON HJR-2, SJR-3, and SB-112 (which describes how the commissioners will be selected & held to the call, btw).
Thank you for your reply and your opinion, Denah. Please say hi to your colleagues at Florida Convention of States Action. I appreciate your taking the time to engage.
Happy to discuss any time Ken. As a solo entrepreneur (since 2006) and as a volunteer for the Convention of States grassroots movement (since 2020), I am happy to discuss this further with you or anyone who might have questions.
I find way too many errors in this article and the minute you start misquoting Scalia out of context you show the lack of scholarly information and your historical knowledge. And who would quote the most liberal/activist Chief Justice (Berger) and use that for logical reasoning either. A "convention for proposing amendments" is not also called a Constitutional Convention by anyone informed on the process. It is in the Constitution but a Constitutional Convention is not and there is a difference. And a number of your claims show you are unaware the Supreme Court disagrees with you. A convention can be limited and in fact every convention of the states always has been going back to 1677. The Court also disagrees that delegates cannot be limited. It can be limited to a single subject or a set of fixed subjects. Scalia in your quote was asked about a Constitutional Convention not a convention under Article V. You have confused rules with laws, and just like the first day of Congress the convention sets rules like how many committees to use, hours they will me, rules for debate, but they do not rules what they will discuss or the subject matter as that has already been set (and limited to) in the resolution passed by the 34 states in the operative language of the resolution and delegates are bound to those subjects alone. There was no "conjuring" involved. There are two reasons we have never had a convention.-1) the required 34 states (2/3 of the several states) threshold has never been met and 2) in over half of the cases of the current amendments, before the threshold was met, a more reasonable Congress saw what was coming and proposed the amendment being sought so there was no need to continue. Congress will likely never do that now. And your quote about not stopping the convention if you don't like it's agenda assumes the states did not set limits and that the convention changes the Constitution. The convention has the same power as Congress to propose amendments, buy they are just proposals as a convention is NOT empowered to enact them. Just like when Congress proposed them, they must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. A convention simply cannot runaway without the power to enact. And your read of the 1787 Federal Convention is right out of the far left's handbook. Congress did not call that convention much less have any control over it. VA called it and for the purpose of "devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union; " as did 10 of the 12 states who attended. The Delegates did exactly as they were instructed. And it was the state legislatures who instructed them after selecting and appointing the. This is also upheld by the Supreme Court that the legislatures will select, appoint and instruct them. There are no runaway conventions and there are no runaway delegates. That does not exist.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, decided on July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that states have the authority to enforce the pledges of presidential electors in the Electoral College.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, rejected the argument of the electors that the Constitution gives them the discretion to vote as they see fit under Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. Kagan wrote that while the Constitution grants states the power to appoint electors, it doesn't explicitly grant electors free rein to vote however they want. The Court reasoned those states can impose conditions on electors (IN ANY MANNER)—including requiring pledges and enforcing them with penalties—to ensure they reflect the will of the state's voters.
This ruling in fact, puts the limits on the convention as described in the state in its petition to call an Article V Convention for Amendments.
Your great concern about a runaway meeting and the fear of inserting screwball amendments is laughable. To cast fear into your readers, you are implying that any amendment suggested would be put in place. If someone said that all Americans should stand on their heads for 10 minutes every day, ipso facto it would become an amendment to the constitution. It is only much later in your article that you acknowledge the fact that every proposed amendment must be ratified by at least 38 of our states. That being true, amendments will obviously have to be realistic common sense meaningful changes to which virtually all Americans can agree. Ratifications will likely have to look much like the election last November – overwhelmingly something that can be fully accepted. Then, at the same time, the amendment would be structured to do the desired reining in of the woefully out of joint Federal government we are now experiencing.
There is a lot of misinformation on this topic. It's obvious there are groups on both sides who benefit from a large federal government, so they will spread the misinformation. Maybe on purpose or not. Actually there have been 42 interstate conventions going back to the 1st one in 1677. Professor Robert Natelson loves this topic so much he created a website with more information about Article V than any other place. Here's the link on the past interstate conventions published in the Florida Law Review. https://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Conventions-FLR.pdf
Also here are 2 more websites with more in-depth information for those who are interested in this important topic. Please consider spending are few hours reading this information. It's very important to have correct information about our founding from historical facts. (What was written about this topic in the first 100 years of our founding!) Good luck everyone!
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!
Thank you for your feedback, George.
Happily, I agree with you: it is sad how some people attempt to display their knowledge of something yet fail to do so.
No, if you read my words, I am not trying to belittle the grassroots. In fact I am a part of the grassroots and I advocate for our empowerment, not for our belittlement.
I won't get into your attempt to disparage my character—suggesting boogie men in my closet—in lieu of a rational retort.
But I do appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I will note that both comments so far, George (District Captain and State Information Analyst, Convention of States Michigan) and Diana (State Communications Coordinator, Convention of States Ohio), have come from people who have, or had direct affiliations working for the Convention of States Action organizations—the primary advocates for a convention—so I'll look forward to fielding comments from more people from within your organization.
I will also note for your consideration, that I have attempted to organize a rational debate about a convention of states, with pro and con perspectives represented, as there are people whom I respect who do not agree with me on this issue. If such a debate takes place I hope your side would be represented by somebody who can present their case rationally.
Ken, thank you for your attention.
I will say that maybe "belittle" was not the best choice of words. My intent was more that the John Birch Society approach comes as though the Founders having included the second part, were trying to commit subversion or at least provide for it. I do enjoy a good debate if both sides are speaking from a platform of truth, hence the boogie man reference. In fact, the Society platform you seem to be emulating was hijacked from Mr. Welch. He in fact had proposed the use of the second part of Article V himself.
Should I consider it an honor that you took the time to research who George Moorman is. Had you been serious enough, you might have discovered there are at least four people using such a name. Obviously, you have decided you have properly identified the correct one, or have you? A presumption on your part?
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
Thank you Ginnie, Ohio State Grassroots Coordinator.
If it weren't from you folks who work for the Convention of States I would think nobody is reading my Substack...which is generally true. Perhaps I might convince you buy a paid subscription, and maybe a few for your friends.
One of your colleagues just challenged me as well about Scalia with a quote that the justice gave eight years after his death, and one, by the way, that seemed to generally reinforce my position. However, I will check on it.
Thank you for not repeating what your colleagues already wrote. Article V itself is only 142 words and doesn't require a Constitution scholar to interpret, no offense to Michael Ferris. So thank you for being economical in your words.
Ken
A state amending convention under Article V is clearly not asking to “open up” or “rewrite” the Constitution. It is not a Constitutional Convention, nor would the Founders have built Article V into the Constitution if it were "naive" or "dangerous." A quick read of Article V verbiage makes it clear the states can propose amendments to THIS Constitution. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise. The resolutions filed in Ohio merely request an opportunity for the states to collectively propose amendments in convention. Once proposed, 38 states must ratify and proposed any amendment (the same standard as Congress) that make it out of the convention. The passage of Article V legislation in Ohio is far too important to allow the meaning of these resolutions to be overshadowed by your doomsday language designed to impart fear. Since you are making very serious allegations here, it would behoove you, Mr. McEntee, to note that HB-67 and SB-112 is faithful delegate legislation that addresses very specifically how delegates will be chosen in any Article V convention. And no, the governor is not part of that process.
Thank you for your opinion. I didn't say the governor is a part of the process. He is referenced as an example of the type of undesirable politician who could be a part of the delegation. I appreciate your feedback.
UM....this is what you wrote Ken:
And who would appoint the delegates to the convention? Grassroots conservative citizens? Or establishment politicians like Gov. Mike DeWine?
Are you making a correction now?
Establishment politicians "like" Mike DeWine.
I believe the author has confused Constitutional Convention with a Convention of States . They are not the same thing . Consider a dump truck and car both are vehicles but serve different functions. The difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention is that a Constitutional Conventions objective is to create a new government where as an Article V Convention works within the limits of the existing Constitution.
It has been called both. I'm not confused. Article V simply calls it a Convention.
And you miss the point. Article V works within the Constitutional framework not outside of the Constitution
You said: "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."
I say: Nobody can say whether you are are an alien from Jupiter. But we can say that you could be.
This whole article is nothing but fear mongering, lack of research and perhaps flat out lying. For example, perhaps you should have included the whole Scalia quote rather than the cherry picked snippet that supports your arguement? Here is what you said about Scalia:
"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.”"
Scalia actually said:
"I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean, whoa, who knows what would come out of that, but if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, I think the only provision I would amend is the amendment provision. I figured out at one time what percentage of the populous could prevent an amendment to the constitution and if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population I think something less than 2% of the people can prevent a constitutional amendment. It oughta be hard, but it shouldn't be that hard"
-National Press Club (2024, April 17).
You either cherry picked what you wanted which is dishonest, or you did no real research to learn the facts. Clearly Scallia distinguishes between a Constitutional Convention and an Atricle V Convention. Ohio legislators are notcalling for a Constitutional Convention, they are calling to invoke article V calling for a Convention of States which is limited in the article V language to proposing amendments to 'this constitution.' FYI If you still doubt Scalia's support of an Article V Convention I did a little research for you. Here is another Scalia Quote:
"I have not proposed an open convention. Nobody in his right mind would propose it in preference to a convention limited to those provisions he wants changed. .... It is not much of a risk. Three-quarters of the states would have to ratify whatever came out of the convention; therefore, I don't worry about it too much. ... I really want to see the the process used responsible on a serious issue so that the shibboleth-the Richard Rovere alarm about the end of the world-can be put to rest and we can learn how to use the process responsibly in the future"
-Daly, John Charles (1979, May 23). A Constitutional Convention: How Well
Would it Work? Edited Transcript of The American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, 22–23, 38
-
Thank you Ed, Regional Captain, Region 4, Central Ohio, Convention of States Action.
I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my article.
I will read your entire reply as time permits, but suggesting that I am dishonest doesn't give me much motivation to engage in dialogue with you.
But I am curious as to the medium through which Scalia addressed the National Press Club on April 17, 2024. He actually died in 2016, so I'm thinking that if he addressed the Press Club with some divine wisdom he acquired from the angels, that might move me over to your side of the debate.
On the other hand, the fact that he would amend the amendment provision (Article V) kind of reinforced my argument that it is problematic.
Allow me to correct some GRAVE misunderstandings in this article.
First, 1787 was not an Article V convention. At the time, the fed gov was provided powers by the States via the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles gave Congress no power to call a convention. Virginia called a convention of States for the purpose of "rendering the constitution adequate for the republic". All commissioners sent were held faithful to the call by their individual States. While Congress did offer an opinion about the subject of the convention, their opinion was superfluous... just as it would be for ANY state convention called by the States. The fact that the Statesmen were within their proper powers was discussed repeatedly during the convention. There were some commissioners who couldn't sign off on the constitution, because their States had limited the subject, so they didn't. However, ultimately, even those States ratified the Constitution, because it was good... and is good, in large part due to Article V which has allowed amendments, over time.
Second, Article V is clear... the convention can ONLY PROPOSE AMENDMENTS. The convention will not have the power to change the Constitution and most certainly doesn't have the power to completely overwrite it. Any amendments PROPOSED by the convention will face the high bar of needing approval by 75% of the States in order to become added as official amendments to our Constitution.
Third, opponents (like this—perhaps even well-meaning) who claim Article V and the Constitution don't describe how the convention is limited are ignoring history. Note that the Constitution also does not describe how to provide due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments mention due process... yet, no description of how to achieve it. But, via historical precedence, we know exactly how it works. That is the same for conventions of the states. Every convention of the states, throughout history, has functioned the same way—the States defined the subject (limit for the convention) via The Application, the States choose the commissioners, the commissioners vote on the chair and structure of the convention, and, in every single 42+ convention, not once did a convention "runaway" and every single time each state received one vote (honoring our republic by giving smaller states equal representation).
Fourth, Justice Scalia actually supported an Article V convention (aka an amendment proposing convention). You can find evidence of that in the video at rumble.com/v46eydx-rare-footage-of-antonin-scalia-advocating-for-article-v-convention-to-restr.html
Fifth, Congress not only has the ability to propose amendments whenever they want, but they also use interpretations based on new definitions of words (words like "commerce" and "general welfare") to create loopholes so they can overstay, overreach, overtax, and overspend. They'll NEVER stop themselves.
In closing, I pray you do not (like this opponent) fall for the fear mongering. Article V is, in fact, the constitutional method, provided by our founders, for the States to CHECK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. By letting our state legislators know that we DO want an Article V convention of states to LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, we can save our republic from the communists attempting to wrestle it from us.
Encourage your legislators to VOTE YES ON HJR-2, SJR-3, and SB-112 (which describes how the commissioners will be selected & held to the call, btw).
Learn more at conventionofstates.com/?ref=55131
Thank you for your reply and your opinion, Denah. Please say hi to your colleagues at Florida Convention of States Action. I appreciate your taking the time to engage.
Happy to discuss any time Ken. As a solo entrepreneur (since 2006) and as a volunteer for the Convention of States grassroots movement (since 2020), I am happy to discuss this further with you or anyone who might have questions.
I find way too many errors in this article and the minute you start misquoting Scalia out of context you show the lack of scholarly information and your historical knowledge. And who would quote the most liberal/activist Chief Justice (Berger) and use that for logical reasoning either. A "convention for proposing amendments" is not also called a Constitutional Convention by anyone informed on the process. It is in the Constitution but a Constitutional Convention is not and there is a difference. And a number of your claims show you are unaware the Supreme Court disagrees with you. A convention can be limited and in fact every convention of the states always has been going back to 1677. The Court also disagrees that delegates cannot be limited. It can be limited to a single subject or a set of fixed subjects. Scalia in your quote was asked about a Constitutional Convention not a convention under Article V. You have confused rules with laws, and just like the first day of Congress the convention sets rules like how many committees to use, hours they will me, rules for debate, but they do not rules what they will discuss or the subject matter as that has already been set (and limited to) in the resolution passed by the 34 states in the operative language of the resolution and delegates are bound to those subjects alone. There was no "conjuring" involved. There are two reasons we have never had a convention.-1) the required 34 states (2/3 of the several states) threshold has never been met and 2) in over half of the cases of the current amendments, before the threshold was met, a more reasonable Congress saw what was coming and proposed the amendment being sought so there was no need to continue. Congress will likely never do that now. And your quote about not stopping the convention if you don't like it's agenda assumes the states did not set limits and that the convention changes the Constitution. The convention has the same power as Congress to propose amendments, buy they are just proposals as a convention is NOT empowered to enact them. Just like when Congress proposed them, they must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. A convention simply cannot runaway without the power to enact. And your read of the 1787 Federal Convention is right out of the far left's handbook. Congress did not call that convention much less have any control over it. VA called it and for the purpose of "devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union; " as did 10 of the 12 states who attended. The Delegates did exactly as they were instructed. And it was the state legislatures who instructed them after selecting and appointing the. This is also upheld by the Supreme Court that the legislatures will select, appoint and instruct them. There are no runaway conventions and there are no runaway delegates. That does not exist.
I am happy to reply to and converse with people who have the courage to use their real names in their comments.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, decided on July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that states have the authority to enforce the pledges of presidential electors in the Electoral College.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, rejected the argument of the electors that the Constitution gives them the discretion to vote as they see fit under Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. Kagan wrote that while the Constitution grants states the power to appoint electors, it doesn't explicitly grant electors free rein to vote however they want. The Court reasoned those states can impose conditions on electors (IN ANY MANNER)—including requiring pledges and enforcing them with penalties—to ensure they reflect the will of the state's voters.
This ruling in fact, puts the limits on the convention as described in the state in its petition to call an Article V Convention for Amendments.
Your great concern about a runaway meeting and the fear of inserting screwball amendments is laughable. To cast fear into your readers, you are implying that any amendment suggested would be put in place. If someone said that all Americans should stand on their heads for 10 minutes every day, ipso facto it would become an amendment to the constitution. It is only much later in your article that you acknowledge the fact that every proposed amendment must be ratified by at least 38 of our states. That being true, amendments will obviously have to be realistic common sense meaningful changes to which virtually all Americans can agree. Ratifications will likely have to look much like the election last November – overwhelmingly something that can be fully accepted. Then, at the same time, the amendment would be structured to do the desired reining in of the woefully out of joint Federal government we are now experiencing.
There is a lot of misinformation on this topic. It's obvious there are groups on both sides who benefit from a large federal government, so they will spread the misinformation. Maybe on purpose or not. Actually there have been 42 interstate conventions going back to the 1st one in 1677. Professor Robert Natelson loves this topic so much he created a website with more information about Article V than any other place. Here's the link on the past interstate conventions published in the Florida Law Review. https://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Conventions-FLR.pdf
Here is Professor Natelson's historic interstate conventions on his Article V website: https://articlevinfocenter.com/list-conventions-states-colonies-american-history/
Also here are 2 more websites with more in-depth information for those who are interested in this important topic. Please consider spending are few hours reading this information. It's very important to have correct information about our founding from historical facts. (What was written about this topic in the first 100 years of our founding!) Good luck everyone!
https://articlevinfocenter.com/researchresources/
https://articlevinfocenter.com/article-v-process/