COS Executive Summary

Attachment: 364/COS_Executive_Summary.pdf

1

E

XECUTIVE

S

UMMARY OF

C

ONVENTION OF

S

TATES

P

ROJECT

I

NTRODUCTION

The root of the frustration felt by citizens across America is that our federal government

does whatever it wants, and there is nothing ordinary citizens can do about it. It doesn’t seem to
matter  who  they  send  to  represent  them  in  Washington,  D.C.  They  have  lost  control  of  their
government.

This is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution, and a convention of states to

propose  constitutional  amendments  is  that  solution.  It  is  the  people’s  final  “check”  on  D.C.,
exercised  through  their  state  legislators;  the  ingenious  plan  of  the  Founders  to  make  state
legislators’  ambitions  (for  state  power)  counteract  federal  officials’  ambitions  (for  federal
power)–for the good of the people.

While  there  is  nothing  “wrong”  with  the  Constitution,  the  problems  we  now  face  are

undeniably  the  result  of  constitutional  interpretations  that  capitalize  on  ambiguities  in  the
wording  of  certain  phrases  (i.e.,  the  general  welfare  clause).    Conservatives  like  to  say  that
federal  officials  “ignore”  the  Constitution,  but  what  they  actually  do  is  creatively  “lawyer”
around its limitations. We can restore the federal government to its proper, limited place only by
clarifying  the  original  meaning  of  certain  constitutional  phrases  through  constitutional
amendments—effectively overturning bad Supreme Court precedents that have eviscerated our
federal system.

The Convention of States Project’s resolution seeks to do this by using the tool given to

the  states  in  Article  V.    It  calls  for

an  Article  V  convention  to  propose  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  for  members  of
Congress.”



H

OW

T

HE

P

ROCESS

W

ORKS

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways in which amendments may be proposed:

Congress may propose them, or Congress must call a “convention for proposing amendments”
upon application of 2/3s of the state legislatures (34 state legislatures). Regardless of which way
amendments are proposed, they must always be ratified by 3/4s of the states (38 states).

Some  say  that  because  Article  Five  itself  is  silent  as  to  the  procedural  details  of  a

convention, we have no idea how the meeting would function. But while it’s true that there has

2

never  been  an  Article  Five  convention,

per  se

,  the  states  have  met  in  conventions  at  least

33

times

. There is a clear precedent for how these meetings work.

In  fact,  many  of  the  Framers  had  attended  one  or  more  conventions,  and  the

basic

procedures

were always the same. For instance, voting at an interstate convention is

always

done

as states, with each state getting one vote, regardless of population or the number of delegates in
attendance. State legislatures choose and instruct their delegates to the convention.

The more detailed, parliamentary rules of the convention are decided at the convention

itself. The Convention of States Project has a complete, detailed draft of convention rules ready
for the convention to move for adoption, available

here

.

B

ACKGROUND ON

C

ONVENTION OF

S

TATES

P

ROJECT

M

OVEMENT

●

  The Convention of States Project was Founded by

Mark Meckler

, Co-Founder of Tea

Party  Patriots  and  President  of  Citizens  for  Self-Governance,  and

Michael  Farris

,

Founder  of  Home  School  Legal  Defense  Association  and  Patrick  Henry  College,  and
current CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom.

•

In addition to retired

Senators Tom Coburn

and

Sen. Jim DeMint

, who now serve as

Senior Advisers to the organization, major supporters include

Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov.

Greg  Abbott,  The  Honorable  Jeb  Bush,  The  Honorable  Ben  Carson,  Mark  Levin

,

Sean Hannity

,

Glenn Beck

,

The Honorable Mike Huckabee

,

The Honorable Sarah

Palin

,

Gov. John Kasich

,

The Honorable Bobby Jindal,

Col. Allen West, Sen. Ron

Johnson, The Honorable Kenneth Cuccinelli, Sheriff David Clarke

,

Lt. Bill Cowan,

David  Barton,  Rep.  Jeff  Duncan,  Sen.  Ben  Sasse,  Sen.  Jim  Talent,  Ben  Shapiro,
Charlie Kirk, and Pete Hegseth.

•

Twelve  states  have

already  passed

  the  Convention  of  States  Project’s  application

(Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona,
North Dakota, Texas, and Missouri).

•

The Convention of States Project application has been

introduced in

48 states

over the

past  3  years.  In  addition  to  the  12  states  that  have  achieved  final  passage  of  the
application, seven (7) other states have passed it one legislative chamber.

•

Conservative  legal  heavyweights  supporting  the  Convention  of  States  Project  include

Robert  P.  George

,

NFIB  v.  Sebelius

challenge  architect

Randy  Barnett

,  Bush  41

Counsel  Ambassador

C.  Boyden  Gray

,

Mat  Staver

  (VP  and  Prof.  of  Law  at  Liberty

University),

Andrew  McCarthy

  (former.  Chief  Asst.  U.S.  Atty.  for  NY,  who  lead

terrorism  prosecution  against  the  “Blink  Sheik”),

Dr.  John  Eastman

,  (Dir.  Ctr.  For

Const.  Jurisprudence  –  Chapman  Univ.  Fowler  School  of  Law),

Charles  Cooper

  of

Cooper  and  Kirk,  LLC,  (clerk  for  Scotus  Justice  Rhenquist,  and  Asst.  Atty.  Gen.  for
Office  of  Legal  Counsel,  Reagan  Administration),

Professor  Nelson  Lund

  (2

nd

Amendment scholar, George Mason University School of Law), and the world’s foremost
expert  on  the  history  of  Article  V  and  interstate  conventions,

Professor  Robert

3

Natelson

.  All  of  these  individuals  (and  others)  serve  on  the  Legal  Board  of  Reference

advising the project.

•

In July, 2015,

ALEC

(American Legislative Exchange Council) adopted the Convention

of States Project application for an Article V Convention as model policy language for
the states.

•

Within  weeks  of  its  formation  in  2015,  the

Convention  of  States  Caucus

  boasted  a

membership  of  over  200  committed  state  legislators  from  40  different  states.  Our
membership is now over 250.

•

In  September,  2016,  Citizens  for  Self-Governance  (the  parent  organization  of  The
Convention  of  States  Project)  hosted  a

Simulated  Article  V  Convention

.  We  achieved

participation  from  all  50  states,  including  122  sitting  state  legislators  and  15  non-
legislator  citizens,  for  a  total  of  137  commissioners.  The  event  unfolded  flawlessly,
demonstrating  for  the  first  time  that  the  Article  V  convention  process  is  safe,  that  the
COS Caucus model Rules work well, and that the process would be an effective way to
curb federal power.

•

On November 1, 2017, PragerU published a video about the Convention of States Project,
entitled “

How the States Can Save America

.” As of December, 2017, it had already been

viewed over 10 Million times.

•

This movement has

significant participation from grassroots

, with further potential for

mobilization:

o

More than 57,000 people follow the Convention of States feed on Twitter.

o

On  Facebook,  the  COS  pages  (a  dedicated  page  for  every  state,  as  well  as  a
national page) have over 3,000,000 supporters.

o

Petitions  in  support  of  the  Convention  of  States  project  have  been  submitted  to
legislators in 100% of all state legislative districts in the country.

o

State  level  volunteer  leadership  teams  are  in  place  in  all  50  states.    Volunteer
District Captains are in place in thousands of state legislative districts.

R

ELEVANT

P

OLLING

D

ATA

●

Gallup – Sept. 21, 2015.

“Half in U.S. Continue to Say Gov’t Is an Immediate Threat.”

Almost half of Americans, 49%, say the federal government poses “an immediate threat
to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,” similar to what was found in previous
surveys conducted over the last five years. When this question was first asked in 2003,
less than a third of Americans held this attitude.

●

Pew – Nov. 23, 2015.

Public Trust in the Gov’t Remains near Historic Lows.

Public trust

in the government remains near historic lows. Only 19% of Americans today say they can
trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most
of the time” (16%).

4

●

Gallup – December 22, 2015.

“Big Government Still Named as Biggest Threat to U.S.”



When  asked  to  choose  among  big  government,  big  labor  and  big  business,  Americans
overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future.

T

YPES OF

A

MENDMENTS

T

HAT

C

OULD

B

E

P

ROPOSED

An  amendment-proposing  convention  called  pursuant  to  the  Convention  of  States  Project
application would be limited to the following subject matter areas:

•

Fiscal restraints on the federal government

•

Scope and jurisdictional restraints on the federal government

•

Term  limits  on  federal  officials  and  members  of  Congress  (this  includes  the  federal
judiciary)

The  following  are  some  potential  amendments  which  would  be  germane  under  this  subject
matter:

○

  Term limits on Congress and federal judges

○

  A balanced budget amendment

○

  Imposition of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

○

  Single Subject Amendment – One subject per bill in Congress

o

A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause back to original intent (the original view
was  the  federal  government  could  not  spend  money  on  any  topic  within  the
jurisdiction of the states)

o

A redefinition of the Commerce Clause back to original intent (the original view was
that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across
state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)

o

A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the
United States

o

A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws

o

Placing an upper limit on federal taxation

o

Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace
them with new, fairer taxes

○

  Religious freedom amendment, prohibiting the government from further interference

with our religious freedoms

○

  Regulatory  curtailment  by  forcing  Congress  to  vote  on  regulations  instead  of

deferring law making to regulators

5

A

NTICIPATING

O

BJECTIONS

1.

The  “Runaway  Convention  Myth”.  Some  people  contend  that  our  Constitution  was
illegally adopted as the result of a “run-away convention.” This has been disproven as a
matter of historical fact. A comprehensive article by Michael Farris refuting the idea that
the  1787  Constitutional  Convention  was  a  “runaway”  was  published  in  the  Harvard
Journal  of  Law  and  Public  Policy  and  is  available

here

.  Below  is  a  summary  of  the

relevant facts:

•

The  claim  that  the  delegates  disobeyed  their  instructions  is  based  on  the  idea  that
Congress called the Constitutional Convention and limited the delegates to amending
the Articles of Confederation. A review of legislative history clearly reveals the error
of  this  claim.  The  Annapolis  Convention,  not  Congress,  provided  the  political
impetus  for  calling  the  Constitutional  Convention.  The  delegates  from  the  5  states
participating at Annapolis concluded that a broader convention was needed to address
the nation’s concerns. They named the time and date (Philadelphia; second Monday
in  May).  The  Annapolis  delegates  said  they  were  going  to  work  to  “procure  the
concurrence of the other States in the appointment of Commissioners.” The goal of
the upcoming convention was “to render the constitution of the Federal Government
adequate for the exigencies of the Union.”

•

Congress played no role in calling the Constitutional Convention, and the Articles of
Confederation gave them no authority to call such a Convention.

•

The  power  of  Congress  under  the  Articles  was  strictly  limited,  and  there  was  no
theory of implied powers. The states, however, possessed residual sovereignty which
included the power to call this convention.

•

Seven  state  legislatures  agreed  to  send  delegates  to  the  Constitutional  Convention
prior to the time that Congress acted to endorse it. The states told their delegates that
the  purpose  of  the  Convention  was  the  one  stated  in  the  Annapolis  Convention
resolution:  “to  render  the  constitution  of  the  Federal  Government  adequate  for  the
exigencies of the Union.”

•

Congress voted to endorse this Convention on February 21, 1787. It did not purport to
“call” the Convention or give instructions to the delegates. It merely proclaimed that
“in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  it  is  expedient”  for  the  Convention  to  be  held  in
Philadelphia  on  the  date  informally  set  by  the  Annapolis  Convention  and  formally
approved by 7 state legislatures.

•

Ultimately, 12 states appointed delegates. Ten of these states followed the phrasing of
the Annapolis Convention with only minor variations in wording (“render the Federal
Constitution  adequate”).  Two  states,  New  York  and  Massachusetts,  followed  the
formula  stated  by  Congress  (“solely  amend  the  Articles”  as  well  as  “render  the
Federal Constitution adequate”).

6

•

Every  student  of  history  should  know  that  the  instructions  for  delegates  came  from
the states. In Federalist 40, James Madison answered the question of “who gave the
binding instructions to the delegates.” He said: “The powers of the convention ought,
in  strictness,  to  be  determined  by  an  inspection  of  the  commissions  given  to  the
members by their respective constituents [i.e. the states].” He then spends the balance
of  Federalist  40  proving  that  the  delegates  from  all  12  states  properly  followed  the
directions  they  were  given  by  each  of  their  states.  According  to  Madison,  the
February 21st resolution from Congress was merely “a recommendatory act.”

•

The  States,  not  Congress,  called  the  Constitutional  Convention.  They  told  their
delegates to render the Federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies of the Union.
And that is exactly what they did.

2.

The  Article  V  Convention  for  Proposing  Amendments  Entails  Numerous,  Redundant
Protections:

•

The scope of authority for the convention is defined by the topic specified in the 34
applications that trigger the convention. These applications are the very source of
authority for the convention to begin with. Any proposals beyond that scope would
be out of order, and any single delegate could object to their consideration.

•

Even if

not a single convention delegate objected to an out-of-order proposal,

and/or

even if

the convention delegates had installed a parliamentarian who refused

to sustain an objection, state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their
authority or instructions. This is because convention delegates are the agents of
their state legislature and are subject to the instructions given by their state
legislature. As a matter of basic agency law, any actions taken outside the scope of
a delegate’s authority would be void.

•

Even if

a majority of convention delegates went rogue,

and

state legislatures

failed to stop commissioners from acting beyond their powers,

and

Congress

nevertheless sent the illicit amendment proposals to the states for ratification, the
courts would declare the proposals void. While the courts don’t have a wonderful
track record in interpreting broad constitutional language, they do have an
excellent track record of enforcing clear, technical matters of procedure and
agency law. And in numerous judicial decisions, the

courts have protected

the

historical understanding of Article V procedures.

•

Even if

ALL of those protections failed, it borders on insanity to think that 38 states

(the  requirement  for  ratification)  would  ratify  an  amendment  proposed  under  these
circumstances.

C

ONCLUSION

7

Politicians who believe that the solutions come from Washington, DC are politicians of

the past. Statesmen who believe in the sovereign American citizens, and who will work to help
the people take their power back from DC are the politicians of the American future.

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2018-04-29 00:51 GMT
Updated:	2019-04-29 03:00 GMT
Published:	2018-04-29 00:00 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:10 GMT
Change Author:	Amy Neely
Credit Author: