Recently, I had an exchange with a few patriots on the Convention of the States. I thought the topic was long dead. I must have been wrong. So, I have re-gathered my thoughts on this topic.
Article V of the Constitution reads:
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.
A brief analysis.
The purpose of Article V is to amend the Constitution. In other words, the Founding Fathers opened the door for us to alter the Constitution for now and the future. Also note that certain parts of the Constitution remain fixed for all time.
It also says that by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, amendments can be proposed. Or two-thirds of the states can apply for a Convention for proposing Amendments.
Afterwards, proposed amendments are sent back to the states for ratification, with three-quarters of the States’ approval to ratify an amendment.
The Amendments.
Since 1787, a total of 27 amendments have been ratified, of which the first ten are known as the Bill of Rights. And since 1788, 17 additional amendments have been proposed by Congress and ratified by the States. The ten original amendments, plus the 17 additional amendments, comprise the 27 total amendments that we have today.
There have also been six additional amendments that were proposed but not ratified by the States.
What’s more? I am aware of three proposed amendments that were voted on by states that Congress has not cleared. These include:
- Balanced Budget Amendment: Many states have passed resolutions calling for this via a Constitutional Convention, but Congress hasn’t cleared it.
- Term Limits for Congress: Several states have pushed for this via resolutions or calls for a constitutional convention.
- Repeal of the Electoral College: Some states.
The Convention of the States is also known as the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). My friends who support the Con-Con remember the Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits well. But let us take a closer look at the one that tried to repeal the Electoral College.
The Repeal of the Electoral College proposition was promoted by the political left. It never cleared Congress, and no Constitutional Convention was called. Nonetheless, 17 states plus Washington, D.C., voted on it. These include:
| California | Colorado | Connecticut |
| Delaware | Hawaii | Illinois |
| Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts |
| Minnesota | New Jersey | New Mexico |
| New York | Oregon | Rhode Island |
| Vermont | Washington | Washington, D.C. |
17 States are just over 1/3 of all the States in the Union. Now, an important Question. Had 38 states voted on it, would the Repeal of the Electoral College have been made an Amendment? You can bet your bottom dollar on it.
3/4 Clause in Article V
While my views are conservative, I have to say that the Left understands the path forward for Article V. They understand how the modern political system works. They know that if three-quarters of the states approve of a proposed amendment, it will become a new amendment. Otherwise, they would not have proceeded with the Repeal of the Electoral College movement. In other words, they knew that the most important clause in Article V is the necessity for three-quarters of all the states to ratify an amendment.
…when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.
Convention of the States
I believe that the supporters of a Con-Con are patriotic. Their posted desire is to:
- The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress.
- Term limits on Congress.
- Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning.
- Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override.
- Require a supermajority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment.
- Give the states (by a 3/5th vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order.
There are pros and cons to a Convention of the States.
Pro
Those who argued for the Constitutional Convention talked about a runaway Washington, D.C, with no practical way to right the ship. To fix the problem, they want to organize a convention, construct, and implement the above-proposed amendments to the Constitution. They also argued that conditions can be set so that only the above-proposed amendments will be discussed at the convention.
Con
The argument against a Constitutional Convention is that once convened, the delegates could make any changes to the Constitution. It happened the first time that a convention was called! The original Constitutional Convention took place in 1787, and it abolished the then-existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Rather than fixing the Constitution, we run the risk of losing the entire Constitution.
I look at it this way. If a convention is called, the States that voted for the Repeal of the Electoral College will certainly send delegates. After all, they represent 34% of the States. Without some of them, the 3/4 clause will never be met. Will they demand concessions? Such as the inclusion of the Repeal of the Electoral College. Will they demand additional amendments? Will they try to abolish the US Constitution? I’m afraid to say… yes, they will.
Previous Convention
Furthermore, the previous convention produced a document that was voted on in its entirety, not individual articles. What if one or some of those six proposed amendments, as currently proposed by the Con-Con people, are not acceptable to everybody? Will the entire document be crammed down our throats?
James Madison warned against having another Constitutional Convention in Federalist 49. It will be voted along political party lines and fueled by the passion of the people rather than well-thought-out reasons.
Right now, we are divided as a nation.
A Third Option.
Rather than Yes or No to a Convention, how about a third option? While the anti-Electoral College crowd failed in their attempt, they, nonetheless, gave us a blueprint to move forward.
If three-quarters of the states approve a new proposal, that proposal will become a new amendment.
For example, the Idaho GOP Platform has a long-standing article to repeal the 17th Amendment.
We support the restoration of the constitution’s checks and balances that protect the rights and sovereignty of the states by repealing the 17th Amendment.
How about the State of Idaho take the initiative to pass a Resolution to repeal it? After passing that resolution, we will work with more states to do the same. When we have 38 states, we will have a new Amendment.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment was just an example. We, as a State, can discuss each of the six proposals by the proponents of a Constitutional Convention.
- Term Limits. What are the pros and cons of it?
- Balance Budget. What are the pros and cons of it?
- Etc.
I like their 6th proposal. It provides a way to push back on the federal overreach.
Moreover, I believe we have spent way too much time arguing about the merits of a convention. I would much rather be discussing the merits of each of the six proposals.
Then, we can move forward… united as a State.
