Wiki_QA_PREVIEW__@@

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
To view this on the COS website, click here [[https://conventionofstates.com/news/cogent-comebacks-in-support-of-convention-of-states|cogent-comebacks-in-support-of-convention-of-states]]


----

====== Short Answers to Detractors of COS ======



----

|//The Convention of States (COS) offers a Constitutionally authorized way to propose amendments to address the Constitutional problems plaguing America.//\\ \\ //Nineteen (19) States have passed the same resolution proposing an Article V amending convention; others are considering. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 states are required to call an amending convention. Amendment ratification requires 38 states.//\\ \\ //An Article V amending convention has never been done. While a small minority of opponents view this as risky, this is actually great news!//\\ \\ //Considering the Federal Government’s intrusion in all aspects of our lives, its exorbitant spending, and disconnected career politicians in Washington, Americans are lucky that our Founders gave us Article V, which empowers the citizenry to affect real change by proposing amendments that Congress will not.//\\ \\ ===== How can an Article V amending convention hold delegates to just three subjects? =====\\ \\ There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 unique applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. There is historical precedent, however, that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. \\ \\ To suggest that the terms of a resolution passed in 34 states carries no weight is to question the states’ power to put forth binding resolutions.\\ \\ //The states have enormous collective power// to restore the American republic. Either they hold the Federal Government accountable to its citizens by promoting self-governance and federalism, or we remain passive witnesses fearful of a tool given to us by our Founders while our constitutional republic falls into ruin.\\ \\ ===== What if a bad amendment is ratified? =====\\ \\ Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes one chamber in 13 states to defeat any proposed amendment. The chance of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero. Furthermore, Congress has introduced more than 11,000 amendments since 1789. Of those, only 33 have been sent to the states for consideration. Of these, 27 were ratified. It’s important to note that only amendments largely supported by the people have been adopted.\\ \\ In June of 2023, the state of California proposed and passed a resolution for an Article V amending convention for proposing a radical gun safety amendment. There is no evidence that this resolution has moved forward or has any supporting states. Amendment proposals unpopular with the people do not progress and are not forwarded to the states for consideration.\\ \\ ===== Can we trust opponents will not be able to change the rules once an Article V meeting begins? =====\\ \\ Yes! No one can change rules in the middle of the game! Improper changes to the Article V process can and have been legally challenged by state legislators, but the Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it attempted to change the rules of the process midstream in Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) Citizens for Self-Governance Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies Michael Farris was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.\\ \\ ===== What about a runaway convention? =====\\ \\ There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Such an argument is simply unconstitutional and is unsupported by historical fact. The runaway convention claim insults the reputations of our Founders suggesting they did not act in good faith. It also implies our Constitution was illegally ratified which is preposterous.\\ \\ Prior to an amending convention, state legislatures will select the delegates and give them written instructions which are legally binding according to standard principles of agency law. A delegate can be recalled by any state legislature at any time. Any actions taken by a delegate outside of their authority is null-and-void by law.\\ \\ American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices: allow Washington, D.C. to continue to “runaway” and rely on the vague hope that the Federal government will somehow fix itself. Or we can go completely around Congress to invoke an Article V convention and trust in the process determined by our Founders.\\ \\ ===== Was the late Justice Scalia really against a state amending convention? =====\\ \\ Despite being misrepresented by groups such as Common Cause and the John Birch Society (JBS), the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been painted as anti-Convention of States. He once said, “I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean, whoa, who knows what would come out of that?” A Constitutional Convention is not the same thing as an Article V convention of states or a convention for proposing amendments.\\ \\ Scalia distinguished that difference in the remainder of his statement completely ignored by our opponents, “…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.” He goes on to say how difficult it is to amend the Constitution and concludes with, “It ought to be hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard.” Scalia not only supported an amendments convention – he wanted to make it easier! If Common Cause and JBS cannot be trusted to present the truth on this subject, how can they be trusted at all? \\ \\ ===== Why not rely on nullification to fix the Federal Government? =====\\ \\ “Nullification” refers to state governments’ refusal to implement Federal actions deemed unconstitutional such as: laws, executive orders, regulations, and court orders. This refusal to implement is often proposed as an alternative to holding an Article V convention. But a closer look proves that nullification is unconstitutional, and not a fair comparison to an Article V convention.\\ \\ Nullification appears nowhere in the US Constitution. In fact, courts at all levels have soundly rejected the theory. The power to make final decisions about constitutionality lies with the Federal courts, not the states. States do not have the power to nullify Federal laws. Furthermore, if nullification were realistic, it could only address the symptoms of the problem, not underlying causes. Nullification cannot set term limits for Congress or promote fiscal responsibility in Washington. Neither can it clarify the Commerce or the General Welfare Clauses to reflect the Founders’ intent. \\ \\ An idea similar to nullification pushed by opponents of COS called “doctrine of lesser magistrates” calls on individual local officials to resist enforcement of Federal laws. Neither of these unconstitutional theories have gained widespread legal acceptance.\\ \\ ===== Isn’t this a right-wing movement? =====\\ \\ New polling out of Pennsylvania — the very state in which the Constitution was penned — confirms that our grassroots initiative to call an Article V convention enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. And it’s no surprise why. Americans everywhere are strongly disillusioned with the Federal government which they believe has bankrupted their futures.\\ \\ Nearly 90% of Keystone State voters, for example, express concern about our $34 trillion national debt, while a shockingly low 7% trust Washington to make important policy decisions that impact their lives. Additionally, a full 90% believe that term limits for members of Congress and other Federal bureaucrats are necessary. No wonder a majority from every party in Pennsylvania say they back our efforts.\\ \\ **Learn so much more at: [[http://www.conventionofstates.com|www.conventionofstates.com]]**\\ \\  \\ \\ |
|


----

|  __Page Metadata__  ||
|Login Required to view?  |No                  |
|Created:                 |2024-09-19 16:47 GMT|
|Updated:                 |2025-09-28 02:48 GMT|
|Published:               |2024-09-18 07:00 GMT|
|Converted:               |2025-11-11 12:04 GMT|
|Change Author:           |Diana Telles        |
|Credit Author:           |                    |