public:cb_mirror:legislator_reference_manual_example_only_pdf_files_6339
To view this on the COS website, click here legislator-reference-manual-example-only
To download the pdf file from the COS website, click here Example_Notebook1.pdf
Legislator Reference Manual (Example Only)
Legislator Reference Manual (Example Only)
Attachment: 356/Example_Notebook1.pdf
                                        Photo source: Americans for Prosperity Continued on page 2 Restore Our Republic Exploring the Purpose and Power of a Convention of States The Article V Solution Series Published March 9–13, 2015 By Rita Martin Dunaway | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| theblaze.com Washington is broken. Our states have been stripped of their rightful decision-making authority. Debt is out of control, regulations crush free enterprise, and our freedoms have been stolen. But we have a solution as big as the problem. Article V of the Constitution allows the states to call a Convention of States to propose constitutional amendments to limit federal spending, debt, and regulations. A Convention of States is the tool given to us by our Founding Fathers to protect and restore our Constitution, and thereby protect and restore our Republic. NOW is the time. Discover exactly what a Convention of States is, how it works, what it can and cannot do. Then decide: do you have the courage to join us? COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 1  2 We know that the Founders’ whole purpose for including the convention mechanism was to provide a way for the states to bypass Congress in achieving needed constitutional amendments. P erhaps the most unifying conservative trait is the conviction that our Founding Fathers designed an ingenious federal sys- tem that we ought to conserve. But as fed- eralism lies dying and our society spirals toward socialism, there is dissension among conservatives about using the pro- cedure the Founders left to the states to conserve it. Because Article V’s amendment-proposing convention process has never been used, some have branded it a mystical and dan- gerous power — a thing shrouded in mys- tery, riddled with unanswerable questions, and therefore best left alone. Some have lit- erally labeled it a “Pandora’s Box,” the opening of which would unleash all manner of evil upon our beleaguered nation. Article V opponents accuse proponents of being reckless with the Constitution. They say we have no idea how a convention would work, who would choose the dele- gates, how votes would be apportioned, or whether the topic of amendments could be limited. My task today is to remove the shroud of mysticism by revealing what we do know about an Article V convention from its text, context, historical precedent, and simple logic. For starters, we know that the Founders’ whole purpose for including the convention mechanism was to provide a way for the states to bypass Congress in achieving needed constitutional amendments. An early draft of Article V vested Congress with the sole power to propose constitu- tional amendments. Under that version, two-thirds of the states could petition Congress to propose amendments, but it was still Congress that did the proposing. On Sept. 15, 1787, George Mason strenu- ously objected to this, pointing out that such a system provided no recourse for the states if the national government should become tyrannical, as he predicted it would do. The result was the unanimous adoption of Article V in its current form, providing two ways for constitutional amendments to be proposed: Congress can propose them, or the states can propose amendments at a con- vention called by Congress upon application from two-thirds, or 34, of the states. Regardless of which body proposes the amendments, proposals must be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the states in order to become effective. We also know from history that voting at an Article V convention would be done on a one-state, one-vote basis. This is the univer- sal precedent set by the 32 interstate con- ventions that occurred prior to the Constitution’s drafting. It explains why it was unnecessary for Article V to specify the number of delegates to be sent by each state; the states can send as many delegates as they like, but each state only gets one vote. We know that state legislatures choose and instruct their convention delegates who act as agents of the state legislatures. Again, this is a matter of universal historical precedent for interstate conventions. On Nov. 14, 1788, the Virginia General As- sembly filed the very first application for an Article V Convention to propose a bill of rights and aptly branded the convention a “convention of the States” to be composed of “deputies from the several States.” Because Congress ultimately used its own Article V power to propose a bill of rights, that meeting was rendered unnecessary. But the application demonstrates the contempo- raneous understanding that the convention process was state-led. The Supreme Court has likewise referred to the process as a “convention of states.” The Article V Solution — Demystifying a Dusty Tool by Rita Martin Dunaway | March 9, 2015 1 Continued to page 3 COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 2  3 F ar and away, fear is the most common rationale among opponents of Article V’s convention process for proposing con- stitutional amendments. Fear of the uncer- tain result, fear of a Congressional take-over, fear of George Soros and what his money might buy. But even as naysayers sit in their meeting rooms and chat rooms opining about hy- pothetical rogue delegates to a hypotheti- cal convention, Congress continues to spend money that our great-grandchildren will one day owe. Our president continues to use creative legal arguments to erase the lines that once separated constitutional powers, thrusting himself into the business of lawmaking. Unelected bureaucrats continue to churn out mountains of regulations that are unau- thorized by Congress—and in some cases put hardworking Americans out of work. And the Supreme Court is one vote away from a revocation-through-interpretation of our right to bear arms. Rather than checking and balancing one another as they were designed and em- powered to do, the three branches of the federal government are acting in concert to further concentrate their power at the expense of state prerogatives and individ- ual liberty. All three branches are, effectively, making laws. Congress, the intended lawmaking branch, has extended its lawmaking into matters reserved to the states. And our un- accountable Supreme Court finds inven- tive ways to interpret the Constitution so as to justify this—not because it can’t de- termine the Constitution’s original mean- ing, but because the original meaning doesn’t matter if our Constitution is, as we are told, a “living, breathing document.” Meanwhile, administrative agencies—the bold and unmanageable fourth branch of government—have broken the will of the American people by the sheer volume of their regulations, rules, and reports. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 376- page “Regulatory Impact Analysis” for its War on Coal begins with a five-page list of acronyms to be learned by the aspiring reader—a virtual electric fence to all but the most intrepid citizen. How can we be a self-governing people when we are completely removed from the invisible hands that actually regulate us, with no means of holding them account- The Article V Solution — The Absurdity of Inaction by Rita Martin Dunaway | March 10, 2015 Ph ot o so ur ce : A P Ph ot o/ C ha rle s D ha ra pa k Continued on page 4 All three branches are, effectively, making laws. 2 Finally, we know that the topic(s) specified in the convention applications does matter. Over 400 applications for an Article V con- vention have been filed since the drafting of the Constitution. The reason we have never had one is because there have never been 34 applications seeking a convention for the same purpose(s). The state applications con- tain the agenda for an Article V convention, and until 34 states agree upon a convention agenda, there will be no convention. Because the authority for an Article V con- vention is derived from the 34 state appli- cations that trigger it, the topic(s) for amendments specified in those applications is a binding limitation on the scope of the convention. The “unanswerable” questions about Arti- cle V do have answers. The unshrouded Ar- ticle V convention isn’t a Pandora’s Box at all, because there is no such thing as magic in a box for us to fear—there is only history, law, and reason to guide faithful Americans in tending their government. And precisely because there is no such thing as magic, we’re going to need an effective tool to do the hard work of restoring our Republic. It’s time to dust off the tool the Founders gave us in Article V and get started. n Continued from page 2 COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 3  4 able, and no hope of knowing or under- standing the laws they are making? Many who oppose using Article V’s con- vention process would agree that well-de- signed constitutional amendments could close court-created structural loopholes that have damaged our federal structure and concentrated power in Washington, D.C. For instance, we could require con- gressional approval for all administrative regulations. We could clarify where Con- gress’ authority ends and the states’ author- ity begins so that Congress could actually have time to do its constitutional job. Yet some insist that an amendment- proposing convention amounts to open- heart surgery for our Constitution, and that nothing could ever justify such an action. Newsflash: our beloved Constitution has been on the operating table, under the knife of an activist Supreme Court, for decades. An admittedly imperfect but well-prepared team of doctors is standing by, eager to stop the bleeding and close up the wound. But a fearful crowd of skeptics is blocking the way. They love this patient and are not entirely convinced that the doctors’ train- ing is sufficient. Do they have the proper supplies? What if armed gunmen enter the surgical ward and interrupt the lifesaving process? “No,” the skeptics conclude. “We can’t be assured of a good outcome, so we had bet- ter just stand by.” And the patient’s life ebbs away. We could learn a lot from Dietrich Bonho- effer, the German pastor who resolved to actively resist Adolf Hitler, at any cost. Bonhoeffer had a painful understanding that it is our actions—not our sentiments— that reveal our truest convictions, and that our desire for safety can be an obstacle to the action that our professed morality re- quires. In 1934, he explained: “There is no way to peace along the way of safety. For peace must be dared. It is itself the great venture and can never be safe. Peace is the oppo- site of security.” It was also Bonhoeffer who said, “Not to act is to act.” The Founding Fathers gave us a tool in Article V to restrain federal power through state-proposed constitutional amendments. I do not doubt that the conservatives trying to block the use of this tool have sincere reverence for our founding document. But mere sentiments cannot rescue our Constitution from con- tinued disfiguration under the federal scalpel, nor close the wounds that are standing open even as we continue this debate. n Continued from page 3 The Supreme Court is one vote away from a revocation-through- interpretation of our right to bear arms. COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 4  5 The Article V Solution — The Way to Implement the 10 th Amendment by Rita Martin Dunaway | March 11, 2015 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. I t’s the elephant in the room. The 10 th Amendment boldly declares: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are re- served to the states respectively, or to the people.” But if the daily news is any indication, there is no subject exempt from federal power. Through its power of the purse, which is virtually unlimited under the mod- ern interpretation, Congress can impact, in- fluence, or coerce behavior in nearly every aspect of life. The question, then, that holds the key to unlocking our constitutional quandary is this: how do states protect their reserved powers under the 10 th Amendment? On a piecemeal basis, states can certainly challenge federal actions through lawsuits, arguing that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to act in a particu- lar area. But what if the court, as it is wont to do, “interprets” the Constitution as pro- viding the disputed authority? What then? In their frustration and disbelief over the growing extent of federal abuses of power (and the refusal of our Supreme Court to cor- rect them), some conservatives argue that states should engage in “nullification,” whereby the states simply refuse to comply with federal laws they deem unconstitutional. While there are some, less dramatic forms of nullification that are perfectly appropri- ate and constitutional—such as states re- fusing to accept federal funds that come attached to federal requirements—this state-by-state, ad hoc review of federal law is fraught with legal and practical pitfalls. First of all, which state officer, institution, or individual decides whether a federal ac- tion is authorized under the Constitution? Is it the state supreme court, the legislature, the attorney general—or can any individual make the determination? After all, the 10 th Amendment reserves powers to individuals as well as to states. Secondly, how can a state enforce its nul- lification of a federal law? For instance, if a state decides that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitu- tional, how can it protect its citizens against the “tax” that will be levied against them if they fail to comply? It’s difficult to envision an effective nullification enforce- ment method that doesn’t end, at some point, with armed conflict. But for true conservatives whose goal is to conserve the original design of our federal system, the far more fundamental problem with this type of in-your-face nullification is the fact that it was not the Founders’ plan. Article VI tells us that the Constitution and federal laws passed pursuant to it are the “supreme law of the land.” Under Article III, the United States Supreme Court is considered to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. While some claim that this was not the Founders’ intention, historical records such as Alexander Hamilton’s Fed- eralist 78 demonstrate it was, in fact, the judiciary that they intended to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts. And then we have the 10 th Amendment it- self. It establishes a principle, but it does not establish a remedy or process for pro- tecting the reserved powers from federal intrusion. That missing process is found in Article V. Faced with a federal government acting be- yond the scope of its legitimate powers— and a Supreme Court that adopts erroneous interpretations of the Constitution to justify the federal overreach—the states’ constitu- tional remedy is to amend the Constitution to clarify the meaning of the clauses that have been perverted. In this way, the states can assert their authority to close the loop- holes the Supreme Court has opened. You don’t have to take my word for it. In an 1830 letter to Edward Everett, James Madison said: “Should the provisions of the Constitu- tion as here reviewed be found not to se- cure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States, the final re- sort within the purview of the Constitu- tion lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process ap- plicable by the States.” In other words, Article V is the ultimate nul- lification procedure. For states that have the will to stand up and assert their 10 th Amend- ment rights, they can do so by applying for an Article V convention to propose amend- ments that restrain federal power. n 3 COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 5  The Article V Solution — The Founders Would Want Us To Use It by Rita Martin Dunaway | March 12, 2015 4 6 A s I have explained in previous articles in this series, most conservative oppo- nents to Article V’s convention process are people who revere our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created. While the brave and brilliant men who de- vised our ingenious federal system are certainly deserving of our profound re- spect, admiration, and gratitude, the idea that they were perfect, infallible states- men—and that the Constitution is un- touchable Holy Writ—is antithetical to their own worldview. And it is this world- view that inspired our government’s unique design. Federalist 51 says it best: “It may be a reflection on human na- ture, that such devices should be nec- essary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither ex- ternal nor internal controls on govern- ment would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be adminis- tered by men over men, the great diffi- culty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the gov- erned; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Thus, the Constitution establishes a gov- ernment replete with checks and balances designed to make “ambition to counteract ambition.” At least, that was the plan. As I explained in a previous article, the three branches of our federal government are now acting in concert to further concentrate federal power at the expense of state power and individual liberty. The Founders predicted this and planned for it. They provided the states with a means of imposing additional checks on all three branches of the federal govern- ment. They designed Article V’s conven- tion process specifically to correct any improper aggregation of power. Good government is simply not a once- and-for-all proposition. At a minimum, it requires our continual exertion to elect “good” public officials. But because we don’t do that perfectly, and because even “good” public officials aren’t perfect, good government requires various adjustments, at various times, to realign its operating structure with the blueprint. The bold declaration that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was entirely inconsistent with the ongoing practice of slavery at our found- ing. It was perfect in principle, yet de- manded the blood, sweat and tears of “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Continued on page 7 COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 6  7 future generations — and a constitutional amendment — to effectuate. Most modern inconsistencies between constitutional principle and practice result from interpretations of the language that conflict with its original meaning. Because the natural ambition of man has led con- gresses, presidents, and courts to seize power at every point of textual vagueness or ambiguity, modern Americans now con- front the task of solidifying the original structure and fortifying limitations on fed- eral power. We must use the tools at our disposal to conform our government’s operating structure to the blueprint. I once assembled a desk using pre-fabri- cated components, a few tools, and an in- struction booklet. When the project was finished, I discovered that I had inadver- tently fastened the drawer to the desktop in such a way that the drawer cannot be opened. Now I can shout, “Open!” at the drawer, or I can complain about my faulty inter- pretation of the instructions, but the only way I will ever achieve a functioning drawer is to remove the improperly con- structed pieces and replace them, paying careful attention to the instructions. Our Constitution is the operating manual for our government. At times, those charged with interpreting the manual have erred, and erred badly. The result is a dys- functional federal system. Those who have read the instructions and understood them can shout “Obey the Constitution!” to federal officials. We can be angry at those who have either purpose- fully or incompetently interpreted the manual to produce the mutated system we have today. But none of this will set things right. The only way we will ever return to a properly functioning federal system is by repairing the damage that has been done to it through specific, unambiguous constitu- tional amendments that reject and replace the offending workmanship. It isn’t disloyal to the Founders to propose constitutional amendments. In fact, the surest way to honor their legacy is to em- ulate them. They knew themselves to be imperfect, and yet they summoned their courage and acted in pursuit of the high ideal of self-governance. We must do like- wise. n Continued from page 6 Continued on page 8 The Article V Solution — Courage Is the Price of Liberty by Rita Martin Dunaway | March 13, 2015 T hroughout this series, I have argued t h a t a n A r t i c l e V a m e n d m e n t - proposing convention offers a viable and well-designed process for the states to rein in a runaway federal government and restore our Republic. In fact, I believe this process may well be the only way to close the court-created loopholes to our Constitution’s original limitations on federal power. The process is as safe as any political process can be, entailing numerous, redun- dant protections. First, the scope of authority for the con- vention is set by the topic(s) specified in the 34 applications that trigger the conven- tion. So if 34 states apply for a convention to propose amendments that limit federal power, any proposals beyond that scope would be out of order. Second, state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their authority or instructions. As a matter of basic agency law, actions taken outside the scope of a delegate’s authority would be void. Third, even if a majority of convention delegates went rogue and were left unchecked by the state legislatures they represent, and even if Congress neverthe- Courage was the ink that marked the words of the Declaration of Independence onto the opening chapter of America. It was the boat that carried Gen. George Washington across the Delaware River. 5 COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 7  8 Continued from page 7 less sent the illicit amendment proposals to the states for ratification, the courts could intervene to declare the proposals void. While the courts don’t have a won- derful track record in interpreting broad constitutional language, they do have an excellent track record of enforcing clear, technical matters of procedure and agency law. But the most important protection on the Article V process is the explicit constitu- tional requirement that three-fourths, or 38, of the states must ratify any pro- posed amendments in order for them to become effective. This means that any bad amendment can be blocked by only 13 states. In light of the multiple layers of protection on the state-led Article V convention process, it is difficult to understand why some are so afraid of it–or why they don’t seem to fear Congress’ parallel Article V power to propose amendments on any sub- ject, any day it sits in session. Certainly, no future outcome of any kind can ever be absolutely guaranteed. Day has dawned since the beginning of time, but who can definitively prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? What critics must acknowledge, however, is that the proper risk analysis is a compar- ative one. It would be difficult for anyone to maintain, with a straight face, that the risk of a state-led amendment-proposing convention is greater than the risk of stay- ing our current course. The “risk” (which, again, exists only in the sense that nothing is entirely risk-free) is negligible. But to those who can’t see around it, I posit this: Courage is the price of liberty. It always has been, and it always will be. Courage was the ink that marked the words of the Declaration of Independence onto the opening chapter of America. It was the boat that carried Gen. George Washington across the Delaware River. Courage was the tattered uniform of young men who gave their lives to rid a fledgling America of the scourge of slavery. It was the tank that carried weary soldiers over the battlefields of a Hitler-stained Europe. And courage was the voice of Martin Luther King, Jr., challenging America to end her hypocrisy and make good on her commitment to the legal equality of mankind. America exists because our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure for us the blessings of liberty and the right of self-governance. They left us Article V’s convention process to ensure that we would have a final defense against federal tyranny. If our generation is so frozen in fear that we lack the modicum of courage required to hold a meeting, then we are simply unworthy of our heritage. Courage is the price of liberty. To learn how you can get involved in this historic effort to restore our Republic, visit www.conventionofstates.com. n Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) and e-mail her at [email protected] Connect with Convention of States Website: ConventionofStates.com Email: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 Facebook: www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject The Convention of States is a project of Connect with Citizens for Self-Governance Website: SelfGovern.com Email: [email protected] Phone: (512) 943-2014 Facebook: www.Facebook.com/Citizens4sg Twitter: @Self_Governance COS-Blaze Dunaway July15_Layout 1 7/14/15 1:02 PM Page 8  We can’t walk boldly into our future, without first understanding our history. Some people contend that our Constitution was illegally adopted as the result of a “run- away convention.” They make two claims: 1. The convention delegates were instructed to merely amend the Ar ticles of Confederation, but they wrote a whole new document. 2. The ratification process was improperly changed from 13 state legislatures to 9 state ratification conventions. The Delegates Obeyed Their Instructions from the States The claim that the delegates disobeyed their instructions is based on the idea that Congress called the Constitutional Convention. Proponents of this view assert that Congress 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 po- litical 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 ex- igencies of the Union.” What role was Congress to play in calling the Convention? None. The Annapolis delegates sent copies of their resolution to Congress solely “from motives of respect.” What authority did the Ar ticles of Confederation give to Congress to call such a Convention? None. The power of Congress under the Articles was strictly limited, and there was no theory of implied powers. The states 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 vari- ations in wording (“render the Federal Constitution adequate”). Two states, New York and Massachusetts, followed the for- mula stated by Congress (“solely amend the Articles” as well as “render the Federal Constitution adequate”). Every student of history should know that Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering The “Runaway Convention” Myth Michael P. Farris, JD, LLM, Convention of States Action — Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies Continued to back page  Continued from front page History tells the story. The Constitution was legally adopted. Now, let’s move on to getting our nation back to the greatness the Founders originally envisioned. 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 inspec- tion of the commissions given to the mem- bers 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 di- rections they were given by each of their states. According to Madison, the February 21 st 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. The Ratification Process Was Properly Changed The Articles of Confederation required any amendments to be approved by Congress and ratified by all 13 state legislatures. Moreover, the Annapolis Convention and a clear majority of the states insisted that any amendments coming from the Constitutional Convention would have to be approved in this same manner—by Congress and all 13 state legislatures. The reason for this rule can be found in the principles of international law. At the time, the states were sovereigns. The Articles of Confederation were, in essence, a treaty be- tween 13 sovereign nations. Normally, the only way changes in a treaty can be ratified is by the approval of all parties to the treaty. However, a treaty can provide for some- thing less than unanimous approval if all the parties agree to a new approval process be- fore it goes into effect. This is exactly what the Founders did. When the Convention sent its draft of the Constitution to Congress, it also recom- mended a new ratification process. Congress approved both the Constitution itself and the new process. Along with changing the number of re- quired states from 13 to 9 , the new ratifica- tion process required that state conventions ratify the Constitution rather than state legislatures. This was done in ac- cord with the preamble of the Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land would be ratified in the name of “We the People” rather than “We the States.” But before this change in ratification could be valid, all 13 state legislatures would also have to consent to the new method. All 13 state legislatures did just this by calling conventions of the people to vote on the merits of the Constitution. Twelve states held popular elections to vote for delegates. Rhode Island made every voter a delegate and held a series of town meetings to vote on the Constitution. Thus, every state legislature consented to the new ratification process thereby validating the Constitution’s requirements for ratification. Those who claim to be constitutionalists while contending that the Constitution was illegally adopted are undermining themselves. It is like saying George Washington was a great American hero, but he was also a British spy. I stand with the integrity of our Founders who properly drafted and properly ratified the Constitution. Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject  The First-Ever Article V Convention of States Simulation ~ A Historic Endeavor ~ of Executive Summary 50 State Delegations Unite to Pursue Federal Restraints C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM  Mark Meckler President & Co-Founder 106 E 6 th Street Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Office: 530-274-9900 [email protected]  1 Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION The First Ever Convention of States Simulation 3 OPENING SUMMARY Convention Opening Plenary Session 5 COMMITTEE SUMMARIES Fiscal Restraints Committee 7 Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Committee 8 Term Limits & Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Committee 10 CLOSING SUMMARY Convention Closing Plenary Session 11 LASTING IMPRESSIONS OF CONVENTION SIMULATION Concluding Letter to Commissioners from Simulation President, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) 17 Commissioners & Legal Advisors Lasting Impressions 18 COMMITTEE ON FISCAL RESTRAINTS Fiscal Restraints Committee Official Report 21 Citizen Proposed Amendments: Fiscal Restraints 22 COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Committee Official Report 25 Citizen Proposed Amendments: Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction 27 COMMITTEE ON TERM LIMITS & FEDERAL JUDICIAL JURISDICTION Term Limits & Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Committee Official Report 31 Citizen Proposed Amendments: Term Limits & Federal Judicial Jurisdiction 32 FINAL CONVENTION REPORT & STATEMENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Official Proposed Amendments, Passed out of the Convention of States Simulation 35 APPENDIX Leadership of the Convention of States Project 37 Roster of State Delegations 39 Convention of States Application 42 Proposed Convention Rules 43 TA BLE OF C ON TE N TS  2  3 INTRODUCTION The First Ever Convention of States Simulation - A Historic Endeavor On September 22nd, a historic event began in Colonial Williamsburg. Every state in the Union was present for the first-ever Simulated Article V Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. A total of 137 Commissioners, including 115 sitting state legislators and 22 non-legislator citizens took part in testing this long-neglected constitutional process with the set of draft rules developed by constitutional experts Professor Robert Natelson and Michael Farris, and reviewed by the COS Caucus, to guide the process. These 137 Commissioners came to the Simulation representing a broad and diverse range of state and regional concerns. They came from greatly varying political experiences. Their constituencies ranged from poor inner- city Americans to the wealthy, affluent movers and shakers of society. But they all came with this common political bond: the recognition that Washington, D.C. has overstepped its bounds and operated unchecked for far too long. The goal of the Simulation was threefold: 1. Educate Legislators. The Article V Convention of States process has never been used. It was important to bring legislators together from all over the country, to use the process, run a convention according to the rules, and thereby create “experts” who would then have a deep, personal knowledge of how the process actually works. 2. Build a Network of State Legislators. We know the power of having a network of educated grassroots in all fifty states, and based on that model, we believed that it was imperative to build a similar network of state legislators committed to the Article V cause. The synergistic effect of The Simulation proved that the Article V Convention process is safe and effective. IN TR O D U C TI ON  4 working in a group with a common goal was part of the end game of the Simulation. 3. Prove that a Convention Works. An Article V convention has never been held before, so it was important to show proof of concept. We can talk about an Article V Convention of States all we want, but until we demonstrated one, it was all theory. The Simulation unfolded seamlessly. The Commissioners built relationships that are continuing. The rules worked flawlessly. The limited call was obeyed and there was not even a hint of a “run away.” But most important of all, the Simulation engaged ordinary Americans in a meaningful exercise of self-governance and proved that state legislators are responsive to the people. Several weeks prior to the Simulation, Convention of States Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, hosted a live Facebook event for the purpose of training citizens in the art of crafting constitutional amendment proposals. COS provided a platform for those citizens to submit their own amendment proposals for consideration by Commissioners at the Simulation. Of course, COS’s team of lawyers and experts had its own slate of favored proposals. But the mission of Citizens for Self-Governance is not to push our own ideas for reforming our nation—it’s to educate and engage the people to advocate for the reforms they believe are needed to restore our constitutional republic. So yes, the Simulation proved that the Article V Convention process is safe and effective. But even more importantly, the thousands of citizen-drafted proposals that formed the basis of the Simulation’s deliberations proved that Americans are ready to be an engaged, self-governing people again and that State Legislators are ready to listen. This handbook will give you an inside view of the Simulation’s proceedings from the perspective of the people who were there. Enclosed you will find: An account from the Convention Secretary, Robert Kelly, as to what transpired at each of the Convention’s Plenary Sessions; An account from each of the Committee Secretaries as to how each Committee meeting unfolded; A letter sent by Convention President Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) to the Convention upon its conclusion; Closing comments from Commissioners and Legal Advisors; The Final Report of each Committee meeting, which was delivered to the Convention; A sampling of proposals from the grassroots, which were submitted to the Commissioners in advance of the Simulation for their consideration; and The Final Report of the Convention, including its statement to the American people and the amendment proposals that were adopted IN TR O D U C TI ON  5 CONVENTION OPENING PLENARY SESSION At precisely 9:00 on the morning of Thursday, September 22, 2016, the temporary Convention President, Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA), gaveled the Simulated Convention of States to order. There was the brief scramble of everyone taking their seats, followed by a moment of silence as everyone took a deep breath and absorbed the moment. Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA) ordered the Secretary to call the roll, and commenced with the business of the Convention. As the roll was called and each state indicated its presence the air was thick with a sense of history in the making. Forty-nine of the fifty states reported present, with Arkansas shortly to show up. Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA) noted the existence of a quorum and invited retired US Sen. Tom Coburn to offer an invocation for the body. US Sen. Coburn led the Convention in a solemn prayer to God that He might assist the Convention in its business and use the Commissioners as His instruments to turn the direction of the country back to Him and to its founding principles. With a huge American Flag behind the main stage, Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA) led the Convention in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is hard to imagine a more patriotic and solemn moment than the convening of Commissioners from all fifty states, standing together to pledge their fidelity to our great nation, before beginning the difficult work of debating how to reform and preserve it for our posterity. As the Commissioners were seated, Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA) addressed the body. He challenged the Commissioners to rise to the occasion and to take their task seriously. He encouraged them to serve as an example to the American people so that the people might realize they need not look to Washington to solve the nation’s problems. Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA), then introduced the candidates for Convention President and Vice President, and asked that they stand as they were named: The Temporary Convention President allowed the Commissioners a brief moment to consider the candidates and then asked the Secretary to call the roll. The states were divided between the candidates and no candidate received a majority of votes. With 12 votes, Rep. Ken Ivory, from Utah was the leading candidate, followed closely by Dr. John Eastman from California and Rep. Kelly Townsend from Arizona with 10 votes each. Rep. Matt Caldwell (FL) Sen. Gary Daniels (NH) Dr. John Eastman (CA) Sen. Alan Hays (FL) Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) First-Ever Simulated Convention of States called to order September 22, 2016 Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO) Mr. Kurt O’Keefe (MI) Rep. Kelly Townsend (AZ) Hon. Vance Wilkins (VA) C O N V EN TI O N OP EN IN G PLEN A R Y SESSIO N  6 “Today is the day, the winds of change are about to blow.” - Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) In acts of inspiring statesmanship, several of the nominees voluntarily withdrew their candidacy, and Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA) encouraged the states to consolidate their votes behind the remaining nominees. He then ordered the roll a second time. On the second vote, the states were again divided with Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) receiving a plurality of 17 votes, Dr. Eastman receiving 13, and Rep. Kelly Townsend (AZ) receiving 11. A murmur ran through the assembly as the Delegations conferred among themselves and each other. Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA) again encouraged the states to consolidate their votes and again ordered the roll. On the third vote, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) received a majority vote of 28 states and was elected as the Convention President. Dr. Eastman, with 12 votes, was elected as the Convention Vice President. As Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) took the podium, he spoke to the body. He acknowledged the honor that it was to serve as President before such a group in such a historic location. He challenged the body to recognize that the struggles the nation is facing are not a product of personnel, but of structure. The federal government has become a bloated bureaucracy and the states have become almost powerless. Article V, he urged, is the tool to repair and maintain our federal system of government. He pled with the Commissioners to act as guardians of the people’s liberty and to work diligently to that end. Rep. Ken Ivory’s (UT) speech sounded as if it had been lovingly crafted over a long period of time. Yet it was off the cuff, and from the heart. The man clearly matched the moment, and the feeling that something special was happening was magnified by his presence at the podium. With his exhortation still hanging in the air, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) dismissed the Convention to their Committees and declared the full assembly meeting adjourned for the day. State Delegations vote Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) Convention President C O N V EN TI O N OP EN IN G PLEN A R Y SESSIO N  7 FISCAL RESTRAINTS COMMITTEE SECRETARY’S SUMMARY The Fiscal Restraints Committee began with Rep. Bruce Williamson (GA), as temporary Chair pursuant to the Rules, leading a vote to elect Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO) as Chair and Rep. Tammie Wilson (AK) as Co-Chair of the Committee. Commissioners from forty-nine states comprised the Committee, which was tasked with considering a full docket of amendment proposals involving limitations on taxation and spending and balancing the federal budget. Professor Robert Natelson was present as a legal advisor and constitutional drafting consultant. The first amendment considered under the subject of balancing the budget was a Debt Limitation Amendment, which passed by a wide margin. Under this proposal, the public debt cannot be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of Congress. The Committee then moved to the subject of limiting taxation and spending. The second proposal adopted by the Committee was the Fair Tax Amendment, effectively repealing the 16 th Amendment and imposing a national sales tax (the national sales tax was later stricken by the main body, as they felt a method of taxation should not be part of the Constitution but should instead be enacted legislatively). This was followed by the narrow passage of a Line Item Veto Amendment proposal (The Line Item Veto Amendment proposal was later voted down by the main body. By far, the most time was spent on devising a Balanced Budget Amendment. Commissioners came prepared for this task with many proposals on how to tackle this complex subject. As possibilities were discussed, Commissioners such as Sen. Brandt Hershman (IN), who brought extensive fiscal policy experience from their respective states, weighed in on unintended consequences of wording. Commissioners who are business owners, such as Bobby Massarini (NY), pointed out that the amendment must be straightforward so that it can be widely understood by the public. The Chair suggested that a Subcommittee work with Sen. Josh Brecheen (OK), to hammer out details. As the Subcommittee returned, the discussion and objections continued. A feeling of disappointment pervaded the Committee as it realized it would not be able to devise a Balanced Budget Amendment in the short time allotted to it. Rep. Bill Patmon (OH), a fiscally conservative Democrat, stated that he was committed to staying late into the night, so determined was he to take something acceptable to his constituents. Statesmanship was on full display in the Committee room, as Commissioners demonstrated their disdain for disappointing the constituents they serve. Vice-Chair Tammie Wilson (AK) put things in perspective for the Committee. She pointed out that although they could not finish this important amendment in the course of this single day and that they had disagreed on minor issues, they had accomplished a great deal in a very short time. These Commissioners had come from all different states with the common goal of stopping Washington DC from its overreach. She expressed confidence that with more time in the real Convention, an amendment could certainly be devised that they could agree upon. She concluded: “Washington should be scared!” Fiscal Restraints Committee FI SC A L R EST R A IN TS C O M M IT TEE  8 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION COMMITTEE SECRETARY’S SUMMARY: The Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Committee convened promptly upon adjournment of the Convention’s Thursday plenary session. The Temporary Committee Chair, Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA), gaveled the Convention to order and promptly commenced with the Committee’s agenda and ordered the Secretary to call the roll. The Committee was comprised of Commissioners representing 46 states, 44 of which were present and ready to proceed with the Committee’s business. Constitutional Scholar Professor Randy Barnett was also present to act as the Committee’s legal and drafting advisor. Rep. Buzz Brockway (GA), next proceeded to the election of his replacement, a permanent chair and vice-chair for the Committee. On the first vote, the Committee was divided with 14 states supporting Sen. Rob Standridge (OK), 13 supporting Rep. Matt Caldwell (FL), and 16 supporting one of several other candidates. On the second vote, Sen. Rob Standridge (OK), received a majority and was elected as a Committee Chair with 25 votes. Rep. Matt Caldwell (FL), as the second highest vote recipient, was elected Committee Vice-Chair with 10 votes. Notably, throughout the election, Sen. Rob Standridge (OK) abstained from voting and did not cast a ballot in his own favor, an action which garnered some comments of approval from the other Commissioners. After a brief address impressing upon the Committee the importance of its task, the Chair opened the floor to discussion of how the Committee should organize and consider the numerous proposals before it. Initially, there was no consensus, and the Committee was forced to briefly recess while the Chair and Vice-Chair conferred over how best to organize the amendment proposals for the Committee’s consideration. Vice-Chair Caldwell ultimately moved that each of the amendment proposals be grouped into topics and that the Committee should select the three topics it considered most important. The Committee would then consolidate and consider all of the amendment proposals under those topics together. On a voice vote, the Committee agreed to this process. Vice-Chair Caldwell grouped the proposals into 13 separate topics. Through a series of votes, the Committee narrowed its consideration to three topics: limits on federal rulemaking, limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause power, and granting the states authority to countermand federal laws. The Committee then broke into Subcommittees for each topic. Each Subcommittee was charged with consolidating the several proposals under its topic into a single proposal to be brought back to the body. The Subcommittee on Rulemaking, as chaired by Sen. Travis Holdman (IN), was tasked with consolidating seven separate proposals, each of which sought to restrain the growing federal bureaucracy in one way or another. The Committee ultimately decided on a procedural check on administrative agencies: Congress could continue to delegate rulemaking authority to these agencies, but if a quarter of either House of Congress objected to the rule, a majority of both Houses would need to vote to affirm the rule. The Subcommittee noted that Congress frequently gridlocks on controversial proposals, and so they drafted the amendment to make it clear that in the event that Congress does not take any action on a challenged administrative rule, it is effectively repealed. As one of the Commissioners noted, Congress shouldn’t be able to pass laws by gridlock, doing nothing and allowing unelected bureaucrats to do it for them. Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Subcommittee FEDE RAL LE GI SLA TIVE & EXE CUT IVE JURI SDIC TI ON CO M M ITT EE  9 The Subcommittee on the Commerce Clause was led by Vice-Chair Caldwell. Despite their disparate backgrounds, the Commissioners quickly agreed that Congress’s Commerce Clause power needed to be curtailed. This amendment was also popular among the citizens. Numerous people had proposed amendments limiting the Commerce Clause power. This popular support formed the backdrop of the Subcommittee’s deliberations. Of particular concern to the Subcommittee was ensuring that the Supreme Court could not simply reinterpret Congress’s Commerce Clause as it had in the past. On the advice of Professor Barnett, the Subcommittee adopted a two-prong approach. In the first section of the amendment, it affirmatively set forth what the Commerce Power was intended to be. In the second section, it stated all of the things the Commerce Power was not, and included language from many of the Supreme Court decisions that had expanded the Commerce Clause, leaving no room for the Supreme Court to misinterpret or misunderstand the purpose of the Amendment. The Subcommittee on Countermand met for the longest time, even as the other Subcommittees were reconvening into the main body. Under the leadership of Rep. Jim Kasper (ND), the Subcommittee knew it needed to strike a balance. On one hand, the states needed a constitutional mechanism to push back against federal abuses of power; on the other, the rule of law needed to be preserved–it would be inappropriate for states representing a small minority of the population to abrogate federal laws that are supported by the vast majority of the American people. The Subcommittee debated whether a simple majority of the states should be able to abrogate federal laws or whether a supermajority should be required. Ultimately, the Subcommittee opted for a compromise: three-fifths of the states would need to agree in order to abrogate a federal law. This would ensure that a small minority of the population couldn’t thwart the will of a majority, but would still allow the states to serve as an instrument of the people when Congress or the Supreme Court implement unpopular policy. The Subcommittees went about their work diligently, knowing they had little time to craft these important amendments. They were so absorbed in their work that they barely broke for lunch. Instead, as lunch was carted by, the Commissioners dashed out into the hallway to make their selections, and then quickly returned to resume their discussion. Numerous drafts and revisions were printed, struck-out, revised, and reprinted. As an expert in Constitutional Law, Professor Barnett’s advice was frequently sought, and many times he found himself needing to be in three places at once. In the end, each of the proposals drafted by the Subcommittees was brought before the entire Committee for review and approval. Each proposal met with overwhelming support and was set for formal introduction to the Convention on the next day. Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Subcommittee Recess FEDE RAL LE GI SLA TIVE & EXE CUT IVE JURI SDIC TI ON CO M M ITT EE  10 TERM LIMITS & FEDERAL JUDICIAL JURISDICTION COMMITTEE SECRETARY’S SUMMARY: The meeting began with the election of the Honorable Vance Wilkins, former Speaker of the House of Virginia, as Committee Chair. Sen. Alan Hays from Florida was elected as Vice-Chair. Chairman Wilkins (VA), chose to take up the topic of term limits first. He insisted upon informal debate as much as possible and suggested the combination of the best possible language from each of the proposals before the Committee. He moved to have term limits on Congress and term limits on the judiciary separated, and the body agreed to handle them separately. The Chair then asked the body to review the proposals before them and prioritize. The Committee began debate on term limits on Congress. They immediately recognized that term limits were very popular with the American people, a fact which was reflected the number of terms limits proposals put forward by the citizens. The debate on term limits lasted for nearly three hours with the Commissioners raising numerous issues, including the proper number of terms, and whether term limits would only serve to empower the federal bureaucracies. Several alterations were made to the original proposal through the debate process, which led to a compromise from all. The final product reflected a wide range of views on the topic, including the views of some on the Committee who did not support term limits at all. The Committee turned next to the consideration of limits on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Committee decided that it could best represent the people’s wishes by providing a method for vacating Supreme Court decisions rather than directly reducing the Court’s jurisdiction. There was a general consensus that the people might find limits on the Supreme Court too controversial. The Committee quickly broke in the middle of its discussion to grab lunch. A short five minutes later, the Committee was back to their deliberations. The Chair made the decision to handle the afternoon session in a different manner. He broke up the Committee into two Subcommittees. One would consider term limits on the Supreme Court, and the other would consider methods of vacating the Court’s decisions. The Subcommittees split for about one hour to work amongst themselves and each recommend one proposal back to the entire Committee. The Subcommittee on Supreme Court Term Limits diverged from any of the initial proposals the Committee had received. The Subcommittee’s unique proposal left many on the Committee uneasy that a single President might have the ability to name most of the Court. The Committee itself was sharply divided between those who favored term limits on the Court and those who favored lifetime appointment. Concerns over giving the President too much power over the Court ultimately outweighed concerns about lifetime appointment, and the Committee rejected the Subcommittee’s proposal. The Subcommittee on Vacating Supreme Court Decisions felt there was a deep need to reinvigorate the states’ power under the Tenth Amendment, which has been effectively gutted by the Court. The Subcommittee considered a variety of drafts and ultimately came forward with a compound proposal that adopted many of the best features of each. The whole Committee overwhelmingly supported the proposal and quickly adopted it for a proposal to the entire Convention. With its deliberations ended, the Committee adjourned. Rep. Scott Clem (WY) in Term Limits & Federal Jurisdiction Committee TE RM LI M IT S & F EDE RA L JU DICIAL JURIS DICT IO N CO M M ITT EE  11 CONVENTION CLOSING PLENARY SESSION Prior to the final Plenary Session, the Commissioners attended a breakfast at which they were treated to a speech by a historian portraying Founding Father, Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry delivered his famous “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death” speech, exhorting the Commissioners to act boldly and bravely as they debated in the session to come. He set the stage and the mood for what was to be an extraordinary day ahead. At 9:08 on the morning of September 23rd, as the commissioners trickled in from breakfast, Convention President Rep. Ken Ivory (UT), gaveled the second plenary session of the Simulated Convention of States to order. Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) ordered the roll to be called and forty-nine states reported as present, with Kentucky absent. The Secretary reported a quorum, and Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) invited Michael Farris to offer the invocation. Michael Farris prayed for God’s blessings on the proceedings of the day and asked that He preserve the nation’s heritage of self-governance and liberty. Upon conclusion of the invocation, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) led the Convention in the Pledge of Allegiance. Once again, the air was thick with a feeling of history being made, and an almost indescribable sense of seriousness reigned. While all knew that this was a simulation, none were treating it as such. They were dealing with our most precious founding document, and each Commissioner took their role seriously. Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the previous day. The motion was made and seconded and was adopted by unanimous voice vote. Each of the Committee Chairs, Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO), Sen. Rob Standridge (OK), and The Hon. Vance Wilkins (VA), introduced the proposals put forward by their respective Committees (Committee Reports included on pages 21 through 32) and moved that they be considered by the body at the appropriate time. Each of the Committee Reports was adopted by a unanimous voice vote of the Convention. Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) acknowledged the limited time available for consideration of the proposals and urged the Commissioners to keep their remarks on each proposal brief. With that note in mind, Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO) introduced the first proposal of the Fiscal Restraints Committee: SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year. SECTION 2 . No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money. SECTION 3. The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect three years after ratification. CONVENT ION CL O SING P LE NARY SES SION  12 Debate ensued, with the Commissioners proceeding to dissect the language of the proposed amendment. Commissioners questioned whether “compelled or coerced” was the appropriate language and suggested “required” might be more straightforward and to the point. One Commissioner suggested that perhaps Section 2 should apply to Congress, the President, and the Federal Judiciary, not just Congress and the President. But this raised concerns that it might make it impossible to enforce contracts with the state governments. Ultimately, the Convention simply decided to adopt the language as proposed. On a roll call vote, the debt limitation amendment passed overwhelmingly: 45 to 3. Next, Rep. Matt Caldwell (FL) introduced the first proposal of the Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Committee: SECTION 1 . The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or any movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. SECTION 2 . The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have the power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. SECTION 3 . State legislatures shall have the standing to file any claim alleging a violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person. SECTION 4 . This article shall be effective not more than five years from the date of its ratification. In debate, concerns were raised that Section 4 could be read to mean that the amendment would only be in effect for five years, rather than going into effect after five years, which was the clear intent of the Committee. The Convention addressed the issue by changing Section 4 to read “This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification.” With this minor change, the Commerce Clause Limitation Amendment also passed overwhelmingly: 44 to 6. Sen. Alan Hays (FL), introduced the first proposal of the Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Committee: No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article. This Term Limits Amendment was hotly contested in debate. A number of Commissioners raised concerns that imposing term limits would only empower the federal bureaucracy since they are permanently in office and can simply outlast adverse Congresses by waiting for them to term out. Objections were also raised that term CONVENT ION CL O SING P LE NARY SES SION  13 limits effectively limit people’s choice in elections–if people don’t want their Congressmen serving lengthy terms they can just vote them out. Proponents of the proposed amendment countered that term limits are necessary to overcome the advantage that incumbents have in virtually every election and that term limits empower the people by getting fresh faces into office. An effort was briefly made to compromise by extending the term limits in the proposal from six to nine in the House and two to three in the Senate, but that change was ultimately rejected. When the Term Limits Amendment was finally put to a vote it passed 35 to 12. Rep. Mark Lepak (OK) introduced the second proposal from the Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Committee: SECTION 1 . Any decision of the Supreme Court may be vacated by a resolution passed by the legislatures of three-fifths of the several states or by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. No state legislative resolution older than five years shall be counted to aggregate the necessary number. SECTION 2 . A decision that is vacated within six months of the date of the entry of the judgment shall result in a vacation of the judgment itself. Otherwise, a decision vacated as provided herein shall not disturb the judgment as between the named parties. SECTION 3 . The congressional override is not subject to a presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court. SECTION 4 . The states’ override shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. Substantial debate immediately arose over the text of the Judicial Override Amendment, largely over whether Congress should be given the power to override Supreme Court decisions. An effort to amend the text raised several other issues, and it became clear that more work was needed to clean up the text of the proposal. The Convention decided to postpone discussion on the Judicial Override Amendment until after lunch so as to allow the Committee to refine the language and bring forward a clean proposal. With discussion of the previous amendment postponed, Rep. Jim Kasper (ND) introduced the second proposal from the Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Committee: SECTION 1: The States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or any other form. SECTION 2: Such abrogation shall be effective when the legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified. SECTION 3: No government entity or official, whether federal, state, or local, may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general CONVENT ION CL O SING P LE NARY SES SION  14 jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision. SECTION 4 . No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this Amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation. The debate focused almost entirely on making minor tweaks to the language. With several small changes having been made, the Abrogation Amendment passed 43 to 5. Thanking the Commissioners for their hard work, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) dismissed the body for a short lunch recess. Over lunch, the Federal Term Limits and Judicial Jurisdiction Committee continued to meet to refine the language of their Judicial Override Amendment. When the Convention returned from lunch, Rep. Mark Lepak (OK) reintroduced the Judicial Override Amendment with the changes made by the Committee over lunch: SECTION 1: Any decision of the Supreme Court invalidating a state law may be vacated, and the law reinstated, by a resolution passed by the legislatures of three- fifths of the several states or by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. No state legislative resolution older than five years shall be counted to aggregate the necessary number. SECTION 2: A decision vacated as provided herein shall not disturb the judgment as between the named parties. SECTION 3: The Congressional override is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court. SECTION 4: The States’ override shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. The debate continued where it had left off, with several Commissioners raising questions about the text of the proposal. Other Commissioners were concerned that providing the states the ability to override the Federal Judiciary went too far and gave the states too much power. The general consensus among the body seemed to be that while the concept of a judicial override was solid in theory, more time was needed to refine the text of the proposal. The Convention voted to table the proposal 35 to 15, effectively killing it for the Simulation. Sen. Alan Hays (FL) raised a point of personal privilege and addressed the body to make it clear that the Convention was not voting against the concept of a Judicial Override Amendment, but rather against proposing a specific text that needed further development. He suggested that the Convention adopt a statement encouraging support for an amendment that would impose restraints on the Federal Judiciary. With the judicial override amendment removed from the Convention’s consideration, Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO) introduced the second proposal from the Fiscal Restraints Committee: The State Delegation of Maine Sen. Garrett Mason, Rep. Randall Greenwood, and Rep. Matt Harrington CONVENT ION CL O SING PLE NARY SES SION  15 SECTION 1: Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have the power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods. SECTION 2: Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the President of the United States. SECTION 3: This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of Amendment is repealed. During the debate, concerns were raised that this amendment might bind Congress’s hands too much and make it too difficult for Congress to raise funds in the event of a national emergency. Several Commissioners also expressed objection to giving Congress the power to impose a value-added tax at the end of Section 1. After substantial debate, the Convention decided to strike out the text at the end of section 1 giving Congress the ability to levy a sales tax, and simply end that section with the word “estates.” With that change and a couple of minor stylistic edits, the Income Tax Repeal Amendment was adopted by the Convention 33 to 14. Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO) then introduced the third proposal from the Fiscal Restraints Committee: The President may disapprove any item of appropriation in any bill. If any bill is approved by the President, any item of appropriation contained therein which is not disapproved shall become law. The President shall return with his objections any item of appropriation disapproved to the House in which the bill containing such item originated. The Congress may, in the manner prescribed under Section 7 of Article I for bills disapproved by the President, reconsider any item disapproved under this article. Proponents of the Line-Item Veto Amendment argued that it would allow the President to curtail pork-barrel spending. Opponents raised concerns that the Amendment would break down the separation of powers and actually increase federal power by allowing the President to coerce Congress to further his/her agenda through the threat of a veto. Ultimately the Convention rejected the Line Item Veto Amendment with a vote of 16 in favor and 32 opposed. Following the defeat of the Line-Item Veto Amendment, Sen. Angela Hill (MS), introduced the third proposal from the Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Committee: Whenever one-quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the Conservative TV & Radio Host Rick Green & US Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) CONVENT ION CL O SING P LE NARY SES SION  16 United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to a President veto under Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. In debate, several Commissioners’ concern was that allowing a quarter of Congress to force a vote on the regulation could allow the minority party in Congress to raise a barrage of obstructions to the majority’s conduct of business. There was also significant debate over what should happen if Congress failed to affirm the regulation once an objection had been raised. Several Commissioners suggested that the regulation should not automatically be rejected if Congress fails to vote. Ultimately, the Convention decided to reject that change and adopted the original language of the proposal 42 to 5. With all of the amendment proposals having been voted upon, Sen. Alan Hays (FL) introduced a formal statement for the adoption of the body: The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the conviction that they are a sound beginning to a critically-needed national discussion about restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Further, it is the conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a balanced budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States. The statement was adopted without debate by a voice vote of the Convention. At the conclusion of the proceedings, Convention President, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) addressed the Convention. He praised the Convention for its conscientiousness in considering each of the proposals that was brought forward and expressed his gratitude for being able to serve the Convention as President. He encouraged the Commissioners to stay the course and use the constitutional process to change the course of the country. The Convention gave Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) a standing ovation in recognition of his service as Convention President. George Washington is said to have coined the phrase that, “The office should seek the man, not the man the office.” In the case of Rep. Ken Ivory (UT), he proved to be the living embodiment of why this sentiment is so valuable. He had to be encouraged to put his name into consideration as Convention President, yet in hindsight, it is hard to imagine anyone else having done a better job. Before the Convention closed, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) entertained a motion of Personal Privilege from the Kansas Delegation, and they requested that Mark Mecker, President of Citizens for Self-Governance be allowed to address the assembled Commissioners. Granting the motion, Convention President Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) introduced President and Founder, Citizens for Self-Governance Mr. Mark Meckler and requested that he give some closing remarks. Mr. Mark Meckler extended recognition and thanks to the Citizens for Self-Governance staff and noted their contributions to the Simulation. He thanked the Commissioners for the seriousness of their deliberation and the passion of their debate and encouraged them to think of themselves as the front line in the fight for the defense of liberty. The Convention voted to adjourn sine die, and was gaveled to an end by Convention President, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT). History had been made, the process had been proven to work, and the Convention of States movement was set to move forward from simulation to the first-ever Article V Convention of States. Rep. Eric Eastman (NH) & Convention President Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) CONVENT ION CL O SING P LE NARY SES SION  17 Commissioners, Thank you for your heart and hard work during the Convention of States Simulation last week. Your circumspection in using the constitutional tool the Founders provided for us in Article V of the Constitution to rein in federal overreach was apparent in your conscientious deliberations and debate. The nation can be proud of the work you have done to signal the path forward in restoring vitality to our ingenious governing system — a system that requires a constitutional balance between the states and the national government. As Thomas Jefferson counseled this “must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted…” I encourage you to spread the word of your great work in this first ever Convention of States Simulation to your communities and with your colleagues. You have demonstrated clearly that representatives closest to the people can exercise their constitutional power in a manner that will more fully secure the blessings of liberty not only for us but for generations to come. If I can ever be of assistance to you in your efforts to move this crucial work forward, please do not hesitate contact me directly. In Liberty, Convention President, Rep. Ken Ivory (UT) CONCLU DING L ET TE R TO CO M M IS SI ONER S  18 COMMISSIONERS’ AND LEGAL ADVISORS’ LASTING IMPRESSIONS C OMMITTEE C HAIR P ERCEPTIONS AND I NSIGHTS : “The restraint of the Delegates in sticking to the essential issues which we must address first was remarkable in view of the fact that there were many other desirable issues that almost all of us agreed upon.” – Hon. Vance Wilkins (VA), Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Committee Chair “Even though this event did not possess the force of law for an actual Article V Convention, I was impressed by the gravity and care everyone gave to the proposed amendments. It was a history making moment and those in attendance understood its significance. I have had the honor of being a part of several significant milestones for the Article V movement and I can say without reserve that this was a very important step toward reestablishing the correct balance of power between the States and the Federal government.” - Sen. Kevin Lundberg (CO), Fiscal Restraints Committee Chair S TATE L EGISLATOR /C OMMISSIONERS ’ P ERCEPTIONS AND I NSIGHTS : “It was truly an honor and privilege to participate in the simulated Convention in Williamsburg this past week. I believe a powerful message was sent not only to the participants, but to many disheartened citizens who are wondering if there is any hope against a growing tyrannical federal government. Please pass along my gratitude to any donors or contributors that made my participation possible… I look forward to continuing to work with fine professionals like Regional Director David Schneider, Mark Meckler and Yourself as we continue to push towards this goal of a Convention.” - Rep. Lynne DiSanto (SD) “ We accomplished in two days what Congress couldn't do in decades” – Rep. Eric Eastman (NH) “Those of us that wish to bring power back to the people in a nation overrun by politicians and special interest, owe a great debt of gratitude to founders such as George Mason and James Madison that included a states’ provision in Article V of our constitution and to Michael Farris, Mark Meckler, Tom Coburn and the other leaders of the Convention of States project for giving us a grassroots movement big enough to enact such a provision. I believe in the coming years, thanks to those mentioned above and the sad state we find our nation in today, the most important words in our constitution will become, The Congress…. on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments . I am very proud to be a part of this amazing movement and look forward to the first ever successful call of an Article V Convention in a just few short years; please join us.” - Sen. Rob Standridge (OK), Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Committee Chair CO M M IS SI ONER S’ & LE GA L AD VIS OR S’ LA STING IM PRES SION S  19 “The constitution has been amended by the Supreme Court with decades of jurisprudence that have inappropriately expanded the power of each federal branch. The constitution adhered to by the federal government today is now over 4,000 pages long, and although it has been effectively – and unlawfully – changed, the framers gave the states a tool to undo what the SCOTUS has done, and what Congress continues to fail to do—unilaterally adopt amendments that limit the federal government’s power.” – Rep. Matt Rinaldi (TX) “It was an honor and privilege to participate in the simulated Convention of the States. This historic event verified the founders' vision of a process that will work when the states assume their Constitutional responsibility.” - Rep. Bert Jones (NC) “The gravity of our mission was clear to everyone. We were given the opportunity to demonstrate - to those hopeful and those skeptical - that the states have not only the power but the ability - to strengthen the constitutional moorings of a nation adrift.” - Rep. Jack Williams (AL) “I wasn’t amazed by all of us recognizing the same problems in the federal government. Probably half the US population could identify most of them. The surprise I got was the large amount, and a variety of, solutions to these problems. I think about these issues a lot, and there were things presented that I'd never even considered. Likewise, there were objections to my solutions that came from different perspectives. Again, some I'd never considered. Normally, I believe that stupidity has an additive property. Meaning that intelligence goes down as the crowd size increases. This Convention proved to be an exception. We were truly working as a group, our intelligence and experience being cumulative. In such a scenario, it becomes easier to comprehend the brilliant results our Founders achieved in drafting our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That brilliance isn't extinct in America; it just isn't often seen, because rarely does a group of people get together with an identical goal.” - Rep. Bill Sutton (KS) “It was with great satisfaction that I was able to participate in this historic simulated Convention of States. The vision of George Mason was realized as Legislators came from around the country to find solutions to correct an out-of-control, overreaching federal government. I left with a renewed hope for my country.” - Rep. Kelly Townsend (AZ) “I was so honored to serve as a Delegate from Vermont. The Convention has opened our eyes that this take back of states powers can be achieved. The work we accomplished was amazing and so much fun! It just goes to show what great things can be accomplished when we work together for the good of our constituents and our country.” - Rep. Lynn Batchelor (VT) “The Williamsburg meeting was a demonstration of how an Article V Convention could be held safely, wisely, and successfully .” - Delegate Jim LeMunyon (VA) “I cannot express to you have much fun I had and the knowledge I gain from [attending] this Convention. I will forever remember how I felt being part of this, it was an honor.” - Rep. James Holtzclaw (ID) “Our two days at the Simulation gave me hope. As with the 1787 Convention, there were statesmen (and women) in abundance–some showing quiet leadership; others quite vocal in their views. As with the 1787 Convention, we didn't all agree on the direction that we should take, but we were bound together by a common commitment and desire to recapture liberty for our children and grandchildren. It was an honor and a privilege to take part, and I am anxious to get back to work on passing our application in Nebraska.” - Sen. Laura Ebke (NE) CO M M IS SI ONER S’ & L EGAL ADVI SO RS ’LA STIN G I M PRE SS ION S  20 “Please pass on my profuse and heartfelt gratitude to the generous sponsors and patriots who chose to make this event possible for myself and the other Commissioners from South Dakota. I truly believe this historic event will have a great impact, energizing and educating legislators and the American people about the only practical and peaceful way to restore self-governance. I am very honored and thankful to have been a part of it!” - Rep. Isaac Latterell (SD) L EGAL A DVISORS ’ L ASTING I MPRESSIONS : “George Mason, who gave us the Article V Convention of States, would be proud; it was his spirit that pervaded the hall.” - Professor Randy Barnett, Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown University Law Center “Something which permeated the approach, explicitly in the messages from Michael Farris, Dr. Tom Coburn, and especially Mark Meckler, is that these legislators are the new founders, the people responsible for standing on the shoulders of the great patriots of the past to save the Republic in a time of great peril.” - Eric O’Keefe, Citizens for Self-Governance Board Member “The verdict is in, the process works.” - Professor Robert Natelson, Independence Institute Senior Fellow of Constitutional Jurisprudence And my own takeaway… In closing, the most important thing I can say is “thank you.” This movement is impossible without great patriots like you. And most certainly, special events like the Simulated Convention cannot be executed without the resources which you so generously chose to provide. It is an honor and a privilege to serve my fellow citizens. In Liberty, Mark “We are on our way to repair what ails our country.” - US Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) & Senior Advisor to Convention of States “The events at Williamsburg will be remembered as a turning point in history. The spirit of liberty and self- government has been reignited.” - Michael Farris, COS Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies “The Convention operated smoothly and according to the rules. It was an emotional experience to witness the seriousness of the Commissioners as they debated. Now it's on to the real Convention…the sooner the better.” - Mark Meckler, President and Founder, Citizens for Self- Governance CO M M IS SI ONER S’ & L EGAL ADVI SO RS ’LA STIN G I M PRE SS ION S  21 FISCAL RESTRAINTS COMMITTEE OFFICIAL REPORT Meeting of September 22, 2016 The Committee adopted the following proposed amendments for consideration of the Convention: PROPOSAL 1 - DEBT LIMITATION AMENDMENT SECTION 1: The public debt shall not be increased, except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year. SECTION 2: No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money. SECTION 3: The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after ratification PROPOSAL 2 - FAIR TAX AMENDMENT SECTION 1: Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have the power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods. SECTION 2: Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the President of the United States. SECTION 3: This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of the amendment is repealed. PROPOSAL 3 - LINE ITEM VETO AMENDMENT The President may disapprove any item of appropriation in any bill. If any bill is approved by the President, any item of appropriation contained therein which is not disapproved shall become law. The President shall return with his objections any item of appropriation disapproved to the House in which the bill containing such item originated. The Congress may, in the manner prescribed under section 7 of the article I for bills disapproved by the President, reconsider any item disapproved under this article. FIS CAL RE STRA INT S CO M M ITT EE REP ORT  22 TOPIC: BALANCED BUDGET Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed: SECTION 1: No money may be expended by the United States except as authorized by a balanced budget approved as specified herein. SECTION 2 : For the purposes of this article, money shall be deemed to be expended either by a cash outlay or by incurring an obligation, even if that obligation is contingent in nature. SECTION 3: The maximum amount which may be budgeted for expenditure shall be the amount actually collected by the United States for these purposes on a basis of an average of the last three fiscal years. SECTION 4 : Congress may enact a temporary exception to this requirement under the following conditions: if the United States is engaged in a war which has been declared by Congress as specified in Article I, then by a majority of the full membership of both houses of Congress; otherwise, upon a national emergency as declared by a seventy-five percent majority vote of the full membership of both houses of Congress. Provided however, that if Congress votes to declare an emergency for three consecutive budgets then all members of Congress shall be permanently ineligible to seek re-election to either house of Congress at the end of their individual current term of service. Constitutional Expert, Professor Robert Natelson, proposed: SECTION 1: Every measure that shall increase the total authorized unconditional or contingent public debt of the United States shall, after complying with the requirements of the seventh section of the first article of this Constitution, be presented to the legislatures of the several states; and before the same shall take effect, it shall be approved by a majority of legislatures in states containing a majority of the population of the United States as determined by the most recently completed decennial enumeration pursuant to the third clause of the second section of the first article. Each state legislature shall have the power to determine its own rules for consideration of such measures. SECTION 2 : Any measure to authorize an increase in a total contingent debt shall be presented to the state legislatures separately from any measure to authorize an increase in total unconditional debt. SECTION 3 : Any purported increase in the public debt of the United States after the effective date of this article that shall not comply with the requirements herein shall not be deemed money borrowed on the credit of the United States pursuant to the second clause of the eighth section of the first article nor valid public debt of the United States under the fourth section of the fourteenth article of amendment. 16% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals. Several weeks prior to the Simulation, Convention of States Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, hosted a live Facebook event to train citizens in the art of crafting constitutional amendments for proposal. Then, Convention of States conducted a poll to determine the level of popular support for various proposals drafted by Michael Farris, and invited citizens to submit their own amendment proposals to be considered by the Commissioners of the Simulation. Below are the results of the polling, along with a small sampling of the thousands of brilliantly crafted and proposed amendments submitted by citizens. CITIZEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: FISCAL RESTRAINTS CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: FIS CAL RE ST RAINT S COM M ITT EE  23 SECTION 4: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution within seven years from the date of its submission to the state legislatures or Conventions in accordance with the fifth article of this Constitution. This article shall become effective six months’ after ratification as an amendment to the Constitution. Citizen, John S., proposed: The government of the United States of America can spend in any one fiscal year a combined total of no more money than the combined total of all money collected in the preceding fiscal year from all sources. The combined expenses include all expenses for the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch (House of Representatives and Senate), and the Judicial Branch, including interest payments on the government debt, retirement payments, welfare payments, medical and Medicare payments, and any money paid to any receiver during the fiscal year. Money collected includes all money obtained from income tax payments (both individual, company, and corporate) fewer reimbursements, tariffs, interest and penalties received fewer reimbursements, fees, processing costs, and any other monies received from any source during the preceding fiscal year, except borrowed money and the selling of bonds. This includes any other taxation system that may be created in the future that will be paid directly or indirectly by residents and/or citizens of this country. It also includes money received from residents or governments of other countries. The only exception is during war. Part or all of the cost of a war can be paid from loans or bond sales but expenses that are not part of the war effort cannot be paid by money received from loans or bonds. Citizen, Oren L., proposed: SECTION 1 : Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year. In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last, constitutionally passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year. SECTION 2 : Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution of the United States shall be levied. SECTION 3: Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of war as Formally Declared by Congress in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities. SECTION 4: Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year. SECTION 5: Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget. TOPIC: ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE Citizen, Chris W., proposed: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Amendment SECTION 1: Federal Reserve Board Abolished (a) In General – Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this ACT, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished. (b) Repeal of Federal Reserve Act – Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed. © Disposition of Affairs – (1) MANAGEMENT DURING DISSOLUTION PERIOD – During the 1-year period referred to in subsection. (a) The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System – (A) shall, for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks – (i) manage the employees of the Board and each such bank and provide for the payment of compensation and benefits of any such employee which accrue before the position of such employee is abolished; and (ii) manage the assets and liabilities of the Board and each such bank until such assets and liabilities are liquidated or assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection, and (B) may take such other action as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wind up the affairs of the Board and the Federal reserve banks. (2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS- (A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while CITIZ EN P ROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: FIS CAL RE STR AINT S CO M M ITT EE  24 maximizing the return to the Treasury. (B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY- After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury. (3) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES- All outstanding liabilities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks at the time such entities are abolished, including any liability for retirement and other benefits for former officers and employees of the Board or any such bank in accordance with employee retirement and benefit programs of the Board and any such bank, shall become the liability of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid from amounts deposited in the general fund pursuant to paragraph (2) which are hereby appropriated for such purpose until all such liabilities are satisfied. (d) Report- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report. TOPIC: ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX Numerous Citizens proposed: The Sixteenth Amendment is repealed. Numerous Citizens proposed: The federal income tax is repealed and replaced by the Fair Tax. Citizen, David G., proposed: There shall be no federal income tax. Federal taxation shall be only upon goods and services and take the form of a sales tax never to exceed 17%. Citizen, Lisa C., proposed: The current income tax and tax code shall be abolished and replaced with a consumption tax, as laid out in current House bill H.R. 25 Topic: Line Item Veto Citizen, John S., proposed: The President of the United States of America has the authority to approve any bill passed by the House and the Senate, veto that bill, or veto any separate line item, or items of that bill. Any bill or line item that has not been vetoed becomes law when the President signs that bill. A line item of a bill is defined as any part of a bill that could be approved and implemented, if otherwise funded, without any other part of that bill being approved. Any bill that is not separated into proper line item organization may be submitted to the Supreme Court by the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the President. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will appoint a Panel of three Justices to review that bill to see if that bill has been properly organized into line items. Any further action or time constants on that bill are frozen until the Panel of Justices make their decision and release that bill to continue the bill processing procedure. The Panel of Justices must complete their review within two weeks. If the Panel of Justices find the bill has been properly organized into line items, the bill will be returned to the organization (the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the President) that sent it to the Supreme Court for the bill to continue processing from that point. If the Panel of Justices finds the bill is not properly organized into line items, all approval signatures on that bill become null and void and the bill, along with the Panel of Justices recommendations, is forwarded to the House of Representatives or the Senate where that bill was first introduced, to begin processing again. When the bill is sent to the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the President may also ask for an opinion on the constitutionality of that bill. The Panel of Justices may decide to provide an opinion on the constitutionality of that bill without being asked. Any constitutional opinion the Panel of Justices may make will not be binding upon the whole Supreme Court if that bill, after becoming a law, becomes part of a case before the Supreme Court. Numerous Citizens proposed: Line item veto. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: FIS CAL RE ST RAINT S COM M ITT EE  25 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION COMMITTEE OFFICIAL REPORT Meeting of September 22, 2016 The Committee adopted the following proposed amendments for consideration of the Convention: PROPOSAL 1 SECTION 1: The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. SECTION 2: The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have the power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. SECTION 3: State legislatures shall have the standing to file any claim alleging a violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person. SECTION 4: This article shall be effective not more than five years from the date of its ratification. PROPOSAL 2 SECTION 1: The States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. FED ERA L LEG IS LA TIV E & EX EC UT IV E JU RISD IC TI ON C OM MI TTE E OFF IC IA L REP OR T  26 SECTION 2: Such abrogation shall be effective when the legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified. SECTION 3: No government entity or official, whether federal, state, or local, may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision. SECTION 4: No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation. PROPOSAL 3 Whenever one-quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. FED ERA L LEG IS LA TIV E & EX EC UT IV E JU RISD IC TI ON C OM MI TTE E OFF IC AL REP OR T  27 TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed: SECTION 1 : Neither the president nor any executive agency of any description whatsoever shall have the authority to make a rule, regulation, or order that is binding on any private person or entity. This shall not be construed to apply to any rule, regulation, or order that, in its essence, concerns the internal operations of government even if incidentally applicable to a private person or entity. SECTION 2: Members of state legislatures shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this amendment. Citizen, Steven S., proposed: The federal government shall at no time pass any regulations, laws, rulings, or any other device that is binding on the states or citizens that is not also binding upon the federal government and its members. Citizen, William L., proposed: Congress shall not delegate legislative authority to any agency. No regulation proposed by any agency of the government of the United States shall be valid or enforceable except it first be approved by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. TOPIC: ATTORNEYS GENERAL Citizen, Wayne B., proposed: The Attorney General of the Federal Government of the United States shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of the Congress. The Attorney General shall be responsible for the enforcement of all Federal Laws and shall serve for a term of four (4) years. TOPIC: COMMERCE POWER Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed: 14% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals. 5% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals. CITIZEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION Several weeks prior to the Simulation, Convention of States Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, hosted a live Facebook event to train citizens in the art of crafting constitutional amendments for proposal. Then, Convention of States conducted a poll to determine the level of popular support for various proposals drafted by Michael Farris, and invited citizens to submit their own amendment proposals to be considered by the Commissioners of the Simulation. Below are the results of the polling, along with a small sampling of the thousands of brilliantly crafted and proposed amendments submitted by citizens. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: FED ERA L LEG IS LA TI VE & EX ECU TIVE JU RIS DIC TIO N  28 SECTION 1: The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. SECTION 2: Members of state legislatures shall have the standing to file any claim alleging a violation of this amendment. Citizen, William L., proposed: Congress shall not have the authority to ban or prohibit the manufacture or possession of any item or substance. Congress may enact laws which define requirements for the transport of items across state borders. These laws must be uniform throughout the United States. They may deal with the nature of the item and the transport thereof only at the moment it is transported across the border and may not in any way address that item before or after. Citizen, James C. proposed: The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce shall not extend to non-commercial activities, nor to commercial intrastate activities which are not involved in the interstate movement of goods and persons. TOPIC: COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT Citizen, Keith K. proposed: SECTION 1: Any rule, interpretation, or guidance adopted by the executive branch may be vacated by a resolution passed by the legislatures of three-fifths of the several states or by three-fifths of both houses of Congress. No state legislative resolution older than five years shall be counted to aggregate the necessary number. SECTION 2: Any item so vacated shall result in the full restoration of any monetary penalties assessed any private party, and any criminal penalty due to the vacated item shall be expunged, with full rights restored to the individual. TOPIC: EXECUTIVE ORDERS Citizen, J. Bruce G., proposed: The President may not issue or implement any executive order which goes against the spirit and intent of the laws which have been passed by the House and Senate and signed by a President. Any violation of this amendment would be the unfaithful execution of the laws and would be a high crime and misdemeanor making the president subject to impeachment. TOPIC: FEDERAL LANDS Citizen, David S., proposed: SECTION 1: The United States Government shall not own, control, or oversee a total of more than six and a half percent of the land and territories of the United States. This shall not include lands which are used for military bases, or are used in any other way for the national defense; which lands shall not exceed more than one and a half percent of the land and territories of the United States, except when the United States is engaged in a war which has been declared by Congress as specified in Article 1. SECTION 2: Upon the ratification of this amendment, the control or oversight of the United States Government of private property shall be immediately abolished. Within five years of the ratification of this amendment, all lands owned by the United States Government, except for that which is specified in Section 1 of this amendment, shall be sold to the people or states, or to some other non-foreign entity. Citizen, Jennifer C., proposed: The Federal Government shall impose no rules or regulations that cause, or aid in, the permanent destruction or fundamental degradation of, natural or cultural resources common to, or held in trust for, the whole of the people. Such common resources include wildlife and wild lands, National parks and monuments, critical ecosystems, water, soil, germplasm and the atmosphere. Nor shall such resources set aside in the common trust be sold by the Federal Government to any private entity, or managed by the Federal Government, on behalf of any entity whatsoever, except for the whole of the American people. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: FED ERA L LEG IS LA TI VE & EX ECU TIVE JU RIS DIC TIO N  29 TOPIC: IMPEACHMENT Citizen, Douglas R., proposed: SECTION 1: The State Legislatures, whenever two- thirds shall deem it necessary, may draft and adopt Articles of Impeachment for the President of the United States. SECTION 2: Each State Legislature adopting said Articles of Impeachment must adopt Articles identical in subject and wording to the other State Legislatures. SECTION 3: A two-year time limit is placed on the adoption of Articles of Impeachment, starting from the date said Articles are adopted by the first State Legislature. Each State Legislature adopting said Articles shall provide an exact copy of the adopted Articles, along with an affidavit signed and dated by the Speaker of the State Legislature, to the Archivist of the United States within fifteen calendar days of its adoption. SECTION 4: Upon adoption of Articles of Impeachment, a State Legislature may not rescind Articles or modify them during the two-year period in which the Articles of Impeachment are under consideration by the several States’ Legislatures. SECTION 5: Upon adoption of Articles of Impeachment by two-thirds of the several State Legislatures, the President shall be impeached and removed from office. SECTION 6: Motivation for Impeachment must be appropriate pursuant to the High Crimes and Misdemeanors clause in Article II of the Constitution. SECTION 7: The States’ impeachment action or impeachment authority shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. TOPIC: EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW Citizen, Daniel C., proposed: Congress shall impose no laws or regulations to which they themselves are not subject. Citizen, Vickie D., proposed: There shall be no federal law or regulation which exempts any persons or parties from a neutral law of general applicability, consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. Citizen, Jim K., proposed: The President shall not have the power to pardon former Presidents, nor any member of their cabinet. Further, no person having received a Presidential Pardon will be allowed to hold the office for a period of ten years after receiving the pardon. Pardons for former Presidents and cabinet members shall be granted only by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and then approved by simple majority of the Supreme Court of the United States. TOPIC: EDUCATION Citizen, Teresa B., proposed: The Federal government shall no longer oversee educational issues, nor make any education policy, regulation or advisement. The Federal Department of Education shall be dissolved. All educational responsibilities, policies, and governance shall be transferred back to the States. TOPIC: NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE Citizen, Thomas G., proposed: SECTION 1: The ”Necessary and Proper” clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18) of this Constitution is from this date forward repealed on the grounds of systematic abuse being demonstrated by the Federal Courts and Government. SECTION 2: All laws previously deemed Constitutional by “Necessary” and/or “Proper” clause that are not also clearly backed by a specific enumerated power listed within this Constitution; are void from this day forward. All proposed laws from this day forward shall include the enumerated power of this Constitution that clearly grants the government the power to enforce any proposed law. SECTION 3: Any State government may resolve, by simple majority vote, to question the conferred enumerated power granted by this Constitution to enforce proposed law and upon the passing of such State resolution; Congress must either demonstrate in court the power granted to them for proposed law or ratify this Constitution's enumerated powers list as already outlined in this Constitution. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: FED ERA L LEG IS LA TI VE & EX ECU TIVE JU RIS DIC TIO N  30 TOPIC: WAR POWER Citizen, John G., proposed: No troops can be deployed to foreign lands for more than 90 days without a declaration of war. There can be no continuing resolution to bypass the 90-day requirement and no troops may go back to that area in the next two years without a declaration of war. TOPIC: PRIVATE PROPERTY Citizen, Bobby T., proposed: Congress shall make no law that allows confiscation of any personal property whatsoever unless the individual is convicted by a jury of his/her peers of a crime of violence, or trafficking in contraband, or human slavery. Should say individual be found innocent at a later date, any property confiscated shall be immediate without delay be returned in the same condition it was when it was seized, there shall be no exceptions or exclusions to this. TOPIC: SINGLE SUBJECT LIMIT ON BILLS Citizen, David M., proposed: All bills brought for consideration of the House and Senate shall consist of not more than one topic, precisely described in the title, and shall contain no other items unrelated to the topic and title. TOPIC: SPENDING CLAUSE Citizen, Mark S., proposed: No grant of funds by the federal government to the individual states shall be conditioned on a recipient state enacting a state law on a subject matter that is not within the specifically delegated jurisdiction of the federal government. Citizen, Willis E. S., proposed: SECTION 1: The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution. SECTION 2: The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment. SECTION 3: The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold. SECTION 4: Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts. TOPIC: TREATIES Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed: SECTION 1: A treaty is an international agreement executed by the United States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation. SECTION 2: No treaty may be adopted by the United States except by the ratification of two-thirds of the full membership of the United States Senate or, when applicable, the process specified in Section 3 of this Article. SECTION 3: Any treaty which primarily obligates the United States respecting its relationship to its own citizens and residents shall be ratified in a two-step process requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress followed by approving resolutions by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states. All such approvals shall be completed not later than five years after the date upon which the United States executed the relevant treaty. 10% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM EN DM ENT S: FED ERA L LEG IS LA TI VE & EX ECU TIVE JU RIS DIC TIO N  31 TERM LIMITS AND FEDERAL JUDICIAL JURISDICTION COMMITTEE OFFICIAL REPORT Meeting of September 22, 2016 The Committee adopted the following proposed amendments for consideration of the Convention: PROPOSAL 1 No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article. PROPOSAL 2 SECTION 1: Any decision of the Supreme Court may be vacated by a resolution passed by the legislatures of three-fifths of the several states or by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. No state legislative resolution older than five years shall be counted to aggregate the necessary number. SECTION 2: A decision that is vacated within six months of the date of the entry of the judgment shall result in a vacation of the judgment itself. Otherwise, a decision vacated as provided herein shall not disturb the judgment as between the named parties. SECTION 3: The Congressional override is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court. SECTION 4: The States' override shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. TE RM L IMI TS & F ED ERA L J UD IC IA L JU RISD IC TI ON C OM MI TT EE OFF IC IA L REP OR T  32 TOPIC: IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES Citizen, Bob K. proposed: A simple majority of state legislatures may impeach a federal judge for cause. TOPIC: JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS & POWER Citizen, Oren L., proposed: SECTION 1: No person shall be nominated for or appointed to the federal bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty-five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders. SECTION 2: The power and authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to that power and authority expressly enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Federal Judicial rulings and orders shall be strictly limited to those parameters expressly enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States. No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial power, authority, or interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not expressly enumerated therein. SECTION 3: Justices of the Supreme Court of the The United States and judges of subordinate Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation or de- confirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years. Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of subordinate Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation or de- confirmation, every six years, upon the ratification of this amendment. SECTION 4: Congress shall have, by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or subordinate Federal Courts. The President shall not have veto authority over Congressional overrides of Federal CITIZEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: TERM LIMITS & FEDERAL JUDICIAL JURISDICTION Several weeks prior to the Simulation, Convention of States Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, hosted a live Facebook event to train citizens in the art of crafting constitutional amendments for proposal. Then, Convention of States conducted a poll to determine the level of popular support for various proposals drafted by Michael Farris, and invited citizens to submit their own amendment proposals to be considered by the Commissioners of the Simulation. Below are the results of the polling, along with a small sampling of the thousands of brilliantly crafted and proposed amendments submitted by citizens. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: TER M LI MI TS & F ED ERA L JU DIC IA L JU RISD IC TI ON  33 TOPIC: SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION Citizen, Jack S., proposed: The authority of the supreme court shall be limited to ruling on the constitutionality of enacted legislation at any level of government; federal, state, or municipal. No Supreme Court ruling or decision shall have any force of law other than as pertains to the singular question of the constitutionality of legislation and or processes, procedures, or practices enacted by legislation. Citizen, Robert B., proposed: Respecting the right of the people to be governed by their elected representatives, judges shall construe this Constitution and other legal texts with paramount consideration for their public meaning as understood by an ordinary reasonable person at the time that they were written. Breach of this duty shall be cause for removal of any judge from office by vote of 2/3 of the states. TOPIC: SUPREME COURT TERM LIMITS & COMPOSITION Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed: SECTION 1: The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of thirteen justices appointed in the manner specified in this article. SECTION 2: The first class of justices appointed herein shall consist of seven justices appointed for a six-year term and six justices appointed for a four- year term. At the expiration of these initial terms, either six or seven justices shall be appointed every two years for a four-year term to maintain a composition of thirteen justices. No justice shall be reappointed to fill a second term. A state may fill a vacancy occurring if its appointed justice is unable or unwilling to serve or is removed by impeachment. SECTION 3: Justices shall be appointed by the several states by a method determined by state law. Each state shall appoint one justice for one term in rotational order. The order of appointment shall be determined by the order of ratification of this amendment by the several states. After three- fourths of the several states have ratified this amendment, the remaining states shall then follow in alphabetical order. SECTION 4: This article shall take effect on the July 1 after the date of ratification, provided that the ratification takes place at least six months before July 1. Otherwise, the effective date shall be on the following July 1. All justices serving on the effective date shall be retired from active service and shall have all the rights and privileges of a senior federal judge as established by law. Citizen, David R., proposed: The Supreme Court shall consist of thirteen Judges; the longest serving member Citizen proposal by of the Supreme Court shall be its Chief Justice. No person shall serve on the Supreme Court for more than eighteen years. The appointment of Judges, both to the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall be reconsidered by the Senate every six years. If the Senate approves of the appointment, the Judge shall continue in office. If the Senate disapproves of the appointment, the Judge shall immediately vacate her or his office. If the Senate fails to reconsider the appointment, the Judge shall vacate his or her office at the end of the Senate’s current session. Judges of the Supreme Court and inferior courts who are in office at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall next be reconsidered when a number of years they have been in office is a number divisible by six. Judges of the Supreme Court who have served more than eighteen years at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall vacate their office when the number of years they have served on the Supreme Court is a number divisible by six. 12% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals. CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: TER M LI MI TS & F ED ERA L JU DIC IA L JU RISD IC TI ON  34 TOPIC: TERM LIMITS Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed: No person shall serve in either or both houses of Congress for more than twelve years. No federal judge shall serve at any level of federal judicial service for more than fifteen years, nor at any one level of service for more than ten years. Citizen, Dennis M., proposed: No member of the House of Representatives or the Senate may hold that office for more than 6 years. This amendment will take effect one year after its ratification. Citizen, David D., proposed: No person shall serve as President of the United States for more than one elected term. If the Vice- President or someone in the line of succession becomes president, due to the death, resignation, impeachment, or inability of the president to serve, that person may run for one elected term, in the next election, or a future election. Citizen, Scott J., proposed: No person shall serve longer than 20 years combined in both houses. No person shall serve in the U.S. House for more than 12 years (6 terms). No person shall serve in the U.S. Senate for more than 12 years (2 terms). A person may fulfill a partial term appointed by the state and then be elected for two terms as Senator, but those years still count toward the mandatory 20-year overall limit. No Federal Judge shall serve more than fifteen years in any judicial office. Citizen, Lou A., proposed: SECTION 1: The term of office for members of the House of Representatives shall be four (4) years. SECTION 2 : No person shall serve in the House of Representatives for more than three (3) terms. SECTION 3: No person shall serve in the Senate for more than (2) two terms. SECTION 4: Justices of the Supreme Court shall be appointed for a single term of ten (10) years. SECTION 5 : Judges of the District and Circuit Courts shall be appointed for a term of six (6) years, and may be reappointed for one (1) additional term. Topic: Vacating Supreme Court Decisions Constitutional Expert, Michael Farris, proposed : SECTION 1: Any decision of the Supreme Court may be vacated by a resolution passed by the legislatures of three-fifths of the several states or by three-fifths of both houses of Congress. No state legislative resolution older than five years shall be counted to aggregate the necessary number. SECTION 2: A decision that is vacated within six months of the date of the entry of the judgment shall result in a vacation of the judgment itself. Otherwise, a decision vacated as provided herein shall not disturb the judgment as between the named parties. Citizen, Jim D. proposed: Within 6 months of issuance, Supreme Court rulings may be overturned/nullified by a 3/5th vote of the State Attorneys General. Justices may be removed by 3/5 of the State Attorneys General. 20% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals. 8% of polling respondents chose this as one of their top 3 amendment proposals CITIZ EN PROPO SE D AM END M ENT S: TER M LI MI TS & F ED ERA L JU DIC IA L JU RISD IC TI ON  35 OFFICIAL PROPOSED AMENDEMENTS FROM THE SIMULATED CONVENTION OF STATES Adopted September 23, 2016, in Williamsburg, VA STATEMENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: “The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the conviction that they are a sound beginning to a critically-needed national discussion about restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Further, it is the conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a balanced budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States.” PROPSED AMENDMENTS, PASSED OUT OF THE CONVENTION OF STATES SIMULATION: FISCAL RESTRAINTS PROPOSAL 1: SECTION 1: The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year. SECTION 2: No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money. SECTION 3: The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after ratification. FISCAL RESTRAINTS PROPOSAL 2: SECTION 1: Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates. SECTION 2: Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. SECTION 3: This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of the amendment is repealed. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION PROPOSAL 1: SECTION 1: The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress OFF ICIAL PROP SE D AM END M ENT S FRO M THE S IM ULAT ED CONVENT ION O F STAT ES  36 may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. SECTION 2: The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have the power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. SECTION 3: The Legislatures of the States shall have the standing to file any claim alleging a violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person. SECTION 4: This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION PROPOSAL 2: SECTION 1: The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision or other form. SECTION 2: Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified. SECTION 3: No government entity or official may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision. SECTION 4: No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION PROPOSAL 3: Whenever one-quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. FEDERAL TERM LIMITS & JUDICIAL JURISDICTION PROPOSAL 1: No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article. OFF ICIAL PROP SE D AM END M ENT S FRO M THE S IM ULAT ED CONVENT ION O F STAT ES  37 Mark Meckler Citizens for Self-Governance, President B.A. in English Literature, San Diego State University J.D., with honors, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Mark Meckler is the Founder and President of Citizens for Self-Governance, an organization created to educate and support grassroots activism in taking power from Washington, D.C., and returning it to its rightful owners, the citizens of the states. Meckler is widely regarded as one of the most effective and well-networked grassroots organizers in the nation and is regularly called on for political commentary in all forms of media. Meckler is the co-founder and former National Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, the largest Tea Party organization in the nation. He left the organization in February 2012 and founded CSG to work more broadly on expanding the self-governance movement beyond the partisan divide. As the President of CSG, Meckler makes sure that all projects, including Convention of States, are fully and appropriately funded, staffed and managed, with a focus on strict stewardship of donor dollars for maximum leverage and effect. Meckler is also personally involved in all media and public relations efforts. Meckler and his wife Patty live in Northern California, where they share a love of outdoor recreation and equestrian activities. Tom Coburn Senior Advisor, Convention of States Project Retired US Sen. Tom A. Coburn, M.D. graduated Oklahoma State University with a degree in accounting. He joined his family business Coburn Optical Industries and helped build it to a juggernaut in the Ophthalmic Industry beginning with 13 employees and growing to over 350. Under his leadership, Coburn Optical captured 35% of the US market before it was sold. Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. then attended medical school, and as a physician has delivered over 4,000 babies. In 1995, Coburn was elected to the Oklahoma House. Coburn kept his promise to serve no more than 6 years in the House returning to Muskogee to his medical practice in 2000. Upon leaving the House, Coburns’ desire to serve maintained plenty of fire. In 2004 Tom Coburn was elected to represent Oklahoma in the United States Senate. During his campaign, he committed to serve no more than two terms. During his tenure, Coburn put forth more legislation than any other Senator to stop out of control spending and to protect the liberties recognized by our Founders. His efforts have helped to expose wasteful government projects by divulging the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and countless other special projects that were intended to enrich lobbyists and preserve the jobs of career politicians in both political parties. His work on behalf of taxpayers has saved billions of dollars. Crowned by the press as a “budget hawk”, Coburn made balancing the budget a top priority. Senate Democrats referred to him as “Dr. No” because of his unwillingness to spend taxpayer money on anything but the most important budget items. After retiring two months early from his second term in the Senate, Coburn returned again to his medical practice but his desire for public service had not waned. Coburn returned to the public eye once again, placing his time, contributing his reputation and sacred honor to promote the Convention of States Project. Coburn now travels the nation educating legislators and concerned Americans about the only constitutional solution as big as our nation’s problems, Convention of States. Coburn lives with his wife Carolyn, (former Ms. Oklahoma) and loves spending time with her, his 3 children and 4 grandchildren. Leadership of the Convention of States Project AP PENDE X – C. O. S. LE ADERS HIP  38 Eric O’Keefe Citizens for Self-Governance, Board of Directors Eric O’Keefe has a 25-year history as an active strategist, board member, and donor with organizations working to advance individual liberty, promote citizen engagement and restore constitutional governance. O’Keefe helped found U.S. Term Limits in 1991, and in recent years, co-founded the Campaign for Primary. Accountability, the Health Care Compact Alliance, and Citizens for Self- Governance. O’Keefe is also a founding board member of the Center for Competitive Politics and Citizens in Charge Foundation. O’Keefe’s book on the corruption of Congress, “Who Rules America,” won praise from the late freedom advocate Milton Friedman. O’Keefe also serves on the board of directors of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which has been active defending Gov. Walker’s agenda during legislative campaigns, recall campaigns, and legislative races. When he is not engaged in civic activities, O’Keefe is a private investor based in rural Wisconsin, where he and his wife raised three children. Michael Farris Citizens for Self-Governance, Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Head of Convention of States Project B.A. in Political Science, magna cum laude , Western Washington University J.D., with honors, Gonzaga University School of Law LL.M., with merit, in Public International Law, University of London Michael Farris is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the founding president of each organization. Farris is a constitutional appellate litigator who has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, 8 federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of 13 states. He has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over 30 years and is widely known for his leadership on homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. A prolific author, Farris has been recognized with a number of awards including the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation and as one of the “Top 100 Faces in Education for the 20th Century” by Education Week magazine. Farris and his wife Vickie have 10 children and 17 grandchildren. AP PENDE X – C. O. S. LE ADERS HIP  39 ROSTER OF STATE DELEGATIONS STATE NAME COMMITTEE Alabama Senator Greg Albritton Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Clay Scofield Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Jack “J.D.” Williams Fiscal Restraints Alaska Representative Lynn Gattis Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Shelley Hughes Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Tammie Wilson Fiscal Restraints Arizona Senator Debbie Lesko Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Kelly Townsend Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Sonny Borrelli Fiscal Restraints Arkansas Representative Bob Ballinger Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Robin Lundstrum Fiscal Restraints Senator Gary Stubblefield Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction California Assemblyman Brian Jones Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Dr. John Eastman Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Mr. Dennis C. Revell Fiscal Restraints Colorado Senator Kevin Lundberg Fiscal Restraints Senator Vicki Marble Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Ms. Laurie Bratten Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Connecticut Senator Joe Markley Fiscal Restraints Representative Rob Sampson Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Delaware Senator David Lawson Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Mr. Sam Waltz Fiscal Restraints Florida Representative Matt Caldwell Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Senator Alan Hays Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Larry Metz Fiscal Restraints Georgia Representative Timothy Barr Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Buzz Brockway Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Bruce Williamson Fiscal Restraints Hawaii Representative Bob McDermott Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction The Honorable G. Lynn Finnegan Federal Executive and Legislative Jurisdiction Idaho Representative James Holtzclaw Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Thomas Loertscher Federal Executive and Legislative Jurisdiction Representative Eric Redman Fiscal Restraints Illinois Representative Thomas Morrison Fiscal Restraints Mr. Nick Sauer Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Indiana Senator Brandt Hershman Fiscal Restraints Senator Travis Holdman Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Ben Smaltz Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Iowa Representative Jake Highfill Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Charles Schneider Fiscal Restraints Senator Jack Whitver Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Kansas Representative Pete DeGraaf Fiscal Restraints Representative Brett Hildabrand Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Bill Sutton Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Kentucky Senator Tom Buford Fiscal Restraints Representative Tim Couch Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Senator Wil Schroder Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Louisiana Senator Dan Claitor Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Page Cortez Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Ray Garofalo Fiscal Restraints AP PENDE X – RO ST ER OF S TAT E DEL EGATION S  40 STATE NAME COMMITTEE Maine Representative Randall Greenwood Fiscal Restraints Senator Garrett Mason Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Matt Harrington Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Maryland Senator Joan Carter Conway Fiscal Restraints Delegate Tony McConkey Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Delegate Michael McKay Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Massachusetts Mr. Andrew Beckwith Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Michigan Representative Lee Chatfield Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Mr. Kurt O'Keefe Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction The Honorable Ken Bradstreet Fiscal Restraints Minnesota Representative Cindy Pugh Fiscal Restraints Representative Duane Quam Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Senator Roger Chamberlain Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Mississippi Representative Chris Brown Fiscal Restraints Representative Dan Eubanks Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Angela Hill Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Missouri Senator Bob Dixon Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Keith Frederick Fiscal Restraints Representative John Wiemann Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Montana Senator Doug Kary Fiscal Restraints Representative Theresa Manzella Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Senator Scott Sales Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Nebraska Senator Laura Ebke Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Curt Friesen Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Senator Brett Lindstrom Fiscal Restraints Nevada The Honorable Sharron Angle Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Assemblyman Brent Jones Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Mr. Steven Miller Fiscal Restraints New Hampshire Senator Gary Daniels Fiscal Restraints Representative Eric Eastman Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Kris Roberts Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction New Jersey Assemblyman Robert Auth Fiscal Restraints New Mexico Representative Yvette Herrell Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Ms. Carla Sonntag Fiscal Restraints New York Mr. Bobby Massarini Fiscal Restraints North Carolina Representative Bert Jones Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Dennis Riddell Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Senator Norman Sanderson Fiscal Restraints North Dakota Representative Rick Becker Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Jim Kasper Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Scott Louser Fiscal Restraints Ohio Representative Christina Hagan Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Bill Patmon Fiscal Restraints Representative Margy Conditt Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Oklahoma Senator Josh Brecheen Fiscal Restraints Representative Mark Lepak Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Rob Standridge Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Oregon The Honorable Bruce Starr Fiscal Restraints Mr. Kevin Moss Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction The Honorable Derrick Kitts Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Pennsylvania Senator John Eichelberger Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction The Honorable Eugene Geesey Fiscal Restraints AP PENDE X – RO ST ER O F STAT E DEL EGATION S  41 STATE NAME COMMITTEE Rhode Island Mr. William Perry Fiscal Restraints Mr. Matt Fabisch Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction South Carolina Senator Larry Grooms Fiscal Restraints Representative Ralph Kennedy Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Bill Taylor Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction South Dakota Representative Lynne DiSanto Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Senator Brock Greenfield Fiscal Restraints Representative Isaac Latterell Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Tennessee Senator Mike Bell Fiscal Restraints Representative Sheila Butt Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Jay Reedy Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Texas Senator Brian Birdwell Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Phil King Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Rick Miller Fiscal Restraints Representative Matt Rinaldi Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Utah Representative Ken Ivory Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Merrill Nelson Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Kim Coleman Fiscal Restraints Vermont Representative Robert Helm Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Vicki Strong Fiscal Restraints Representative Lynn Batchelor Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Virginia Senator Amanda Chase Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Delegate Jim LeMunyon Fiscal Restraints Delegate Scott Lingamfelter Fiscal Restraints The Honorable Vance Wilkins (Former Speaker of Virginia House of Delegates) Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Washington Senator Ann Rivers Fiscal Restraints Mr. Skyler Rude Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Ms. Fallon Stidd Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction West Virginia Senator Robert Karnes Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Delegate John Overington Fiscal Restraints Wisconsin Mr. Eric O'Keefe Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction The Honorable Dave Zien Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Wyoming Representative Jim Allen Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction Representative Scott Clem Term Limits and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Representative Dan Laursen Fiscal Restraints Delegation Chairperson in Bold AP PENDE X – R OS TER OF S TAT E DEL EGATION S  42 Application for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States Whereas, the Founders of our Constitution empowered State Legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government, and Whereas, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending, and Whereas , the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent, and Whereas , the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and Whereas, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people — particularly for the generations to come — by proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and related abuses of power. Be it therefore resolved by the legislature of the State of _______________________: Section 1 . The legislature of the State of _____________ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a Convention of the States limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States 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. Section 2 . The secretary of state is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and copies to the members of the said Senate and House of Representatives from this State; also to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their cooperation. Section 3 . This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject. AP PEND EX – C. O.S. M OD EL AP PLIC AT ION  43 PROPOSED CONVENTION RULES In July 2015, Professor Robert Natelson, one of the nation’s leading Article V experts, crafted an initial draft of rules for a Convention of the States along with Convention of States Project Co- Founder, Michael Farris. Since then, members of the Convention of States Caucus – a group of 200+ state legislators from 40 states, all united in their support of an Article V Convention of States – have been invited to review Professor Natelson’s rules and provide input. The following is the latest iteration of those rules as of September 2015. When a Convention of States is called, these rules will be available for official debate and adoption. CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS - PROPOSED RULES (1) Rule 1. Questions not governed by these rules shall be governed by the latest published edition of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure , except where the rule in that manual can be applied only to a state legislature rather than a convention; in which case the matter shall be determined by parliamentary common law. (2) Rule 2. Officers (a) The officers of the Convention shall consist of a president and vice president, who shall be elected from among the Commissioners; and the following, who shall be elected from among persons, not Commissioners: secretary, sergeant-at-arms, parliamentarian, and assistant parliamentarian. (b) All officers shall be on oath to carry out their duties faithfully and in accordance with lawful authority. © The temporary Convention President shall be appointed from among the Commissioners from the state that was the first to enact the application that led to the calling of this Convention. The temporary president shall be selected by a majority vote of that state’s Delegation. The temporary president’s sole duty shall be to preside over the election of the Convention President and he or she shall be ineligible to be the permanent president. Rule 3. The sergeant-at-arms is empowered, under the direction of the president, to secure the good order of the house. Orders issued by the president to the sergeant-of-arms shall be appealable, as in the case of other rulings of the chair. (4) Rule 4. The members of this Convention are the Committees (Delegations) appointed by their respective states. (5) All votes shall be taken by states, with each state having one vote. (6) In roll call votes, states shall declare their votes in alphabetical order. (7) Rule 5. Irrespective of how many Commissioners a state includes within its Delegation, no more than five Commissioners from any one state shall be on the floor at the same time. (8) On every vote, the state's vote shall be announced by the chair of the state Delegation or his or her designee. Every Delegation shall canvass each Commissioner on each vote in a manner to be prescribed by the commissioning state or, in default of a prescribed manner, by the Delegation. Each state Delegation's vote shall be determined in accordance with the rule prescribed by the commissioning state. Rule 6. A quorum to do business shall consist of the Commissioners empowered to cast the votes of not less AP PEND EX – PR OP OSED C ONV EN TIO N RU LES  44 than 26 member states, and all questions shall be decided by the greater number of those which be fully represented, but a lower number than 26 may adjourn from day to day. (9) Rule 7. The order of business shall be as follows: (10) (1) call to order, (2) roll call, (3) invocation, (4) pledge of allegiance, (5) reading and approval by the clerk of the minutes of the previous day, (6) reports of standing Committees, (7) reports of special or select Committees, (8) special orders, (9) unfinished business, (10) introduction and first reading of proposals, (11) consideration of daily calendar, (12) announcement of Committee meetings, and (13) recess for the day (adjournment). (11) Rule 8. Every Commissioner, rising to speak, shall address the President; and while he or she shall be speaking no one shall pass between them or read any written matter not immediately germane to the question under consideration. (12) Rule 9. Of two Commissioners rising to speak at the same time, the President shall name the one who shall first be heard. (13) Rule 10. A Commissioner shall not speak more often than twice, without special leave upon the same question; and not a second time before every other who had been silent but shall choose to speak on the subject shall have been heard. [The Commissioners from any one State Committee shall not speak more often than ten times without special leave upon the same question; and not more than five times before every other who had been silent but shall choose to speak on the subject shall have been heard.] (14) Rule 11. No Commissioner shall, without leave of the Convention, speak more than 10 minutes at any one time. (15) Rule 12. A motion made and seconded, shall be repeated; and if written, as it shall be when any member shall so require, shall be read aloud by the Secretary or transmitted to each Commissioner’s pre-designated electronic device before it shall be debated. (16) No motion, other than a procedural motion, shall be in order unless germane to both the subject matter specified in the state applications on which Congress called the Convention and to the subject matter specified in the Convention call. (17) Rule 13. A motion may be withdrawn at any time before the vote upon it shall have been declared. (18) Rule 14. When a debate shall arise upon a question, no motion, other than to amend the question, to commit it, or to postpone the debate, shall be received. (19) Rule 15. A question that consists of one or more propositions shall, at the request of any Commissioner, be divided and put separately as to each proposition. (20) Rule 16. No substantive question or Committee recommendation shall be decided the day on which it is introduced or first debated if any five states request that the decision is postponed to another day. (21) Rule 17. A motion to reconsider a matter that has been determined by a majority may be made, with leave unanimously given, on the same day on which the vote passed; but otherwise not without one day’s previous notice; in which last case, if the Convention agree to the reconsideration, the Convention or, by the Convention’s leave, the President shall assign a future day for the purpose. (22) Rule 18. A Commissioner may be called to order by another Commissioner, as well as by the President, and AP PEND EX – PR OP OSED C ONV EN TIO N R UL ES  45 may be allowed to explain his or her conduct or any expressions supposed to be reprehensible. (23) Rule 19. All questions of order shall be decided by the President, subject to appeal to the Convention, but without debate. (24) Rule 20. Upon a question to recess for the day, (25) which may be made at any time, if it is seconded, the question shall be put without debate. (26) [ Rule 21. When the Convention shall recess, every Commissioner shall stand in his or her place until the president pass.] (27) Rule 22. No Commissioner shall be absent from the Convention, so as to interrupt the representation of his or her state, without leave. (28) Rule 23. Committees—generally applicable provisions (1) The standing Committees shall include Rules, Credentials, Administration, Fiscal Restraints, Federal Jurisdiction, and Term Limits. (29) The Convention may create ad hoc Committees. (2) The membership of the Rules, Credentials, and Administration Committees shall be elected by a plurality vote of the states, voting by secret ballot. The membership of ad hoc Committees shall be appointed by the President unless the Convention shall prescribe another method. (30) The membership of the Fiscal Restraints, Federal Jurisdiction, and Term Limits Committees shall be selected by the method designated in Rule 24. (3) Each Committee may by majority vote create Subcommittees for issues germane to the Committee’s assigned task. (4) Committees and Subcommittees shall not sit while the Convention shall be or ought to be sitting, without leave of the Convention. (31) Rule 24. Fiscal Restraints, Federal Jurisdiction, and Term Limits Committees. (32) (1) The Fiscal Restraints Committee, Federal Jurisdiction Committee, and Term Limits Committee each has [exclusive] (33) responsibility for developing proposals within the corresponding subject matter of the state applications for the Convention. (2) Each of these three Committees shall consist of one member from each state Delegation, selected as determined by such Delegation; provided, however, that no person shall serve on more than one of those three Committees. (3) Any proposal approved by a Subcommittee of any of these three Committees shall be referred to its Committee Chairman, who shall schedule it for hearing within five days of its referral from the Subcommittee. The Committee shall vote on any proposal endorsed by at least five Committee members within 24 hours after the hearing (weekends and holidays excluded). Approval shall be by a simple majority of Committee members present and voting. (4) Every proposal reported from the Fiscal Restraints, Federal Jurisdiction, or Term Limits Committee shall be scheduled for debate and a vote on the floor of the Convention; the Presiding Officer of the Convention shall have no authority to refuse to schedule debate or a vote on any such proposal, and no formal rule shall be required to schedule any such proposal for debate or a vote. No motion to adjourn sine die shall be in order so long as any such proposal remains without a Convention vote to pass, reject, or table. Endnotes (1) The general reasons beyond these rules are found in §3.14 of ** ROBERT G. NATELSON, STATE ** **INITIATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: A GUIDE FOR LAWYERS AND ** AP PEND EX – PR OP OSED C ONV EN TIO N R UL ES  46 **LEGISLATIVE DRAFTER** S (2014) (popularly called the “Article V Compendium”—and hereinafter “COMPENDIUM”). The specific rules derive from a variety of sources (including many prior Conventions of States), but particularly from the rules adopted by the 1861 Washington Conference Convention, a general gathering of states that proposed a constitutional amendment. Those rules were, in turn, based on previous Convention experience. However, with one exception (election of certain committee members) the secrecy rules applying in earlier Conventions have been dropped. Modern expectations are of openness. (2) For an explanation of the selection of Mason’s Manual, see COMPENDIUM, §3.14.4. The 1850 Nashville Convention designated Jefferson’s rules for the U.S. Senate as a default source, but that seems more dated and less familiar to most state lawmakers than Mason’s. (3) This is derived from the practice of previous interstate Conventions. The recommendation of the parliamentarian is an innovation based on a recommendation by an experienced legislator. COMPENDIUM §3.14.3. Some Conventions have appointed assistant secretaries, but it would seem better to allow the secretary to appoint assistants without their being Convention officers. (4) This rule follows the parliamentary common law, see COMPENDIUM §3.14.1, but is placed here to answer questions frequently raised of how the Convention is to control internal demonstrations or disorder. (5) This is a clarification of precedent and of sometimes-confusing earlier Convention rules. (6) This follows the unvarying former practice. (7) The traditional order was for states to vote in a northeast-to-southwest order, but the current configuration of the country makes that difficult, and the alphabetical system is more familiar to modern Americans. (8) This rule addresses the unfair and potentially unruly situation arising at the 1850 Nashville Convention, where Tennessee, although having only one vote, sent 100 Commissioners, more than all other states combined. The Compendium recommends a maximum of five, which is justified by fact that this Convention will include many more states than earlier Conventions. The rules take account of the fact that some states may wish to appoint alternate Commissioners. (9) This is based, with the numbers adjusted for the larger number of states, on the rules of the 1861 Washington Convention. See COMPENDIUM §3.14.3. (10) This is the order in Mason’s Manual, as modified for the fact that this is a Convention, not a legislative body. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. The pledge of allegiance has been added in this version. (11) The word “recess” to describe an adjournment from day-to-day is used in Mason’s Manual. (12) This is based on the rules prevailing both at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and the 1861 Washington Convention, although modified to take account of modern technology. COMPENDIUM § 3.14.5. (13) COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. (14) Id. The matter in brackets has been inserted for discussion. (15) Added to reflect modern conditions. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. (16) Based on the Washington Convention rules, COMPENDIUM §3.14.5, but updated for modern conditions. (17) This rule provides that a substantive motion is out of order unless germane to the subjects in the applications and call, whichever is narrower. Normally the subject matter of the applications and the call would be the same. In some cases, however, some of the 34 applications that trigger a Convention on a particular subject might mention extraneous subjects. This language makes clear that the Convention is to consider only subjects on which at least 34 applications agree, and which are therefore stated in the call. AP PEND EX – PR OP OSED C ONV EN TIO N R UL ES  47 (18) Based on the Washington Convention rules. Id. (19) Based on the Washington Convention rules. Id. (20) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention. Id. The language has been updated. (21) This is loosely based on the 1774 New York City Convention usually known as the First Continental Congress but represents a compromise between the need for speed and a rule that mandated delay at the request of any Delegation. Id. (22) Based on a rule of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, with language updated. (23) COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. (24) A proposed rule of the Washington Convention would have dispensed with the right of appeal, but the Delegates rejected that provision. Compendium §3.14.5. (25) The word “recess” to describe an adjournment from day-to-day is used in Mason’s Manual. (26) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention. See COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. (27) This optional rule is based on rules of the Washington and 1787 Philadelphia Conventions. Id. The rule reflects the high prestige of the presiding officers of those Conventions, General George Washington, and former President John Tyler. Other Conventions have not adopted this rule, and whether any particular Convention adopts it may depend on the identity of its own presiding officer. (28) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention, with updated language. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. (29) The requirement for standing committees on fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, and term limits is based on the three-subject model application of Citizens for Self-Governance’s “Convention of States” movement. (30) Both plurality elections of committees and presidential appointment were used in prior Conventions. Here, elections are reserved for the three most important committees. The Convention is free to prescribe election at any time for other committees. Earlier Convention rules refer to “ballot.” The word “secret” is added because modern Americans may not be aware that the term “ballot” traditionally implies secrecy. Although most of the secrecy rules applied in older Conventions have been dropped here, secrecy may be necessary in this case to ensure an impartial choice and to minimize hard feelings among Commissioners. (31) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention and modern legislative practice. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. (32) This Rule was developed for a Convention convened pursuant to the three-subject “Convention of States” application. It sets forth a procedure for proposals within those three subjects and prevents presiding officers from refusing to permit debate or votes on credible proposals within those three areas. (33) The inclusion of the term exclusive would prevent the Convention from creating committees to “wire around” the three standing committees mentioned in this section. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to both including and omitting the term “exclusive.” AP PEND EX – PR OP OSED C ONV EN TIO N R UL ES  On September 11, 2014, some of our nation’s finest legal minds convened to consider arguments for and against the use of Article V to restrain federal power. These experts specifically rejected the argument that a Convention of States is likely to be misused or improperly controlled by Congress, concluding instead that the mechanism provided by the Founders is safe. Moreover, they shared the conviction that Article V provides the only constitutionally effective means to restore our federal system. The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement, which is reproduced here. The names and biographical information of the endorsers, who have formed a “Legal Board of Reference” for the Convention of States Project, are listed below the Statement. The Constitution’s Framers foresaw a day when the federal government would exceed and abuse its enumerated powers, thus placing our liberty at risk. George Mason was instrumental in fashioning a mechanism by which “we the people” could defend our freedom— the ultimate check on federal power contained in Article V of the Constitution. Article V provides the states with the opportunity to propose constitutional amendments through a process called a Convention of States. This process is controlled by the states from beginning to end on all substantive matters. A Convention of States is convened when 34 state legislatures pass resolutions (applications) on an agreed topic or set of topics. The Convention is limited to considering amendments on these specified topics. While some have expressed fears that a Convention of States might be misused or improperly controlled by Congress, it is our considered judgment that the checks and balances in the Constitution are more than sufficient to ensure the integrity of the process. The Convention of States mechanism is safe, and it is the only constitutionally effective means available to do what is so essential for our nation—restoring robust federalism with genuine checks on the power of the federal government. We share the Founders’ conviction that proper decision-making structures are essential to preserve liberty. We believe that the problems facing our nation require several structural limitations on the exercise of federal power. While fiscal restraints are essential, we believe the most effective course is to pursue reasonable limitations, fully in line with the vision of our Founders, on the federal government. Accordingly, I endorse the Convention of States Project, which calls for an Article V Convention for “the sole purpose of 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 for members of Congress.” I hereby agree to serve on the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project. Signed, Randy E. Barnett * Charles J. Cooper * John C. Eastman * Michael P. Farris * Robert P. George * C. Boyden Gray * Mark Levin * Nelson Lund Andrew McCarthy * Mark Meckler * Mat Staver Continued to back page *Original signers of The Jefferson Statement THE JEFFERSON STATEMENT  Randy E. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he directs the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he represented the National Federation of Independent Business in its constitutional chal- lenge to the Affordable Care Act. Professor Barnett has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, and Northwestern. Charles J. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. He has over 35 years of legal experience in gov- ernment and private practice, with several appearances before the United States Supreme Court. Shortly after serving as law clerk to Justice William H. Rehnquist, Mr. Cooper joined the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1981. In 1985 President Reagan appointed Mr. Cooper to the position of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute. Prior to joining the Fowler School of Law faculty in August 1999, he served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Eastman served as the Director of Congressional & Public Affairs at the United States Commission on Civil Rights during the Reagan administration. Michael P. Farris , head of the Convention of States Project, is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the found- ing president of both organizations. During his ca- reer as a constitutional appellate litigator, he has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of thirteen states. Mr. Farris has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over thirty years and is widely respected for his leadership in the de- fense of homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. R o b e r t P. G e o r g e h o l d s Princeton’s celebrated McCor- mick Chair in Jurisprudence and is the founding director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He is chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and has served as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Professor George is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. C. Boyden Gray is the founding partner of Boyden Gray & Associates, in Washington, D.C. Prior to founding his law firm, Ambassador Gray served as Legal Counsel to Vice President Bush (1981–1989) and as White House Counsel in the administration of President George H.W. Bush (1989–1993). Mr. Gray also served as counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief during the Reagan Administration. Following his service in the White House, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and U.S. Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy. Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent constitutional lawyers and the author of several New York Times bestselling books in- cluding Men in Black (2007), Liberty and Tyranny (2010), Ameritopia (2012) and The Liberty Amendments (2013). Mr. Levin has served as a top advisor to sev- eral members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet—including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States, Edwin Meese. Nelson Lund is University Professor at George Mason University School of Law. He holds a doctorate in political sci- ence from Harvard and a law de- gree from the University of Chicago. After clerking for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, he served in the White House as Associate Counsel to President George H.W. Bush. He also served on Virginia Governor George Allen’s Advisory Council on Self-Determination and Federalism, and on the Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by President Jimmy Carter and Secretary James A. Baker III. Andrew McCarthy is a best- selling author, a Senior Fellow at National Review Institute, and a contributing editor at National Review. Mr. McCarthy is a for- mer Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, best known for leading the prosecu- tion against the various terrorists in New York City. He has also served as an advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mark Meckler is President of Citizens for Self-Governance, the parent organization of the Convention of States Project. Mr. Meckler is one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists. After he co-founded and served as the National Coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, he founded Citizens for Self-Governance in 2012 to bring the concept of “self-governance” back to American government. This grassroots initiative expands and supports the ever-growing, bipartisan self-gover- nance movement. Mat Staver is the Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and also serves as Vice President of Liberty University, Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law, and Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. LEGAL BOARD OF REFERENCE Each of the following individuals has signed onto The Jefferson Statement, endorsing the Convention of States Project, and serves as a legal advisor to the Project: Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject  Our constitutional rights, especially our Sec- ond Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are in peril. With every tragic violent crime, liberals renew their demands for Congress and state legislatures to enact so- called “commonsense gun control” meas- ures designed to chip away at our individual constitutional right to armed self defense. Indeed, were it not for the determination and sheer political muscle of the National Rifle Association, Senator Feinstein’s 2013 bill to outlaw so-called “assault weapons” and other firearms might well have passed. But the most potent threat facing the Second Amendment comes not from Congress, but from the Supreme Court. Four justices of the Supreme Court do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individ- ual right to keep and bear arms. They be- lieve that Congress and state legislatures are free not only to restrict firearms owner- ship by law-abiding Americans, but to ban firearms altogether. If the Liberals get one more vote on the Supreme Court, the Sec- ond Amendment will be no more. Constitutional law has been the dominant focus of my practice for most of my career as a lawyer, first in the Justice Department as President Reagan’s chief constitutional lawyer and the chairman of the President’s Working Group on Federalism, and since then as a constitutional litigator in private practice. For almost three decades, I have represented dozens of states and many other clients in constitutional cases, including many Second Amendment cases. In 2001, for example, I argued the first federal ap- pellate case to hold that the Second Amend- ment guarantees every law-abiding respon- sible adult citizen an individual right to keep and bear arms. And in 2013 I testified before the Senate in opposition to Senator Fein- stein’s anti-gun bill, arguing that it would violate the Second Amendment. So I am not accustomed to being accused of supporting a scheme that would “put our Second Amendment rights on the chopping block.” This charge is being hurled by a small gun- rights group against me and many other con- stitutional conservatives because we have urged the states to use their sovereign power under Article V of the Constitution to call for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments designed to rein in the federal government’s power. The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V conven- tion of the states, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does. The federal government’s unrelenting encroachment upon the sovereign rights of Continued on back page An Open Letter Concerning The Second Amendment and The Convention of States Project From Charles J. Cooper Long Time Constitutional Law Litigator for the NRA Our constitutional rights, especially our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are in peril.  Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject the states and the individual rights of citi- zens, and the Supreme Court’s failure to prevent it, have led me to join the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project. The Project’s mission is to call for an Article V convention limited to proposing constitutional amendments that “impose fiscal restraints on the federal gov- ernment, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.” I am joined in this effort by many well-known constitutional conservatives, including Mark Levin, Pro- fessor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert George, Michael Farris, Mark Meckler, Pro- fessor Robert Natelson, Andrew McCarthy, Professor John Eastman, Ambassador Boy- den Gray, and Professor Nelson Lund. All of us have carefully studied the original meaning of Article V, and not one of us would support an Article V convention if we believed it would pose a significant threat to our Second Amendment rights or any of our constitutional freedoms. To the contrary, our mission is to reclaim our dem- ocratic and individual freedoms from an overreaching federal government. The Framers of our Constitution carefully limited the federal government’s powers by specifically enumerating those powers in Article I, and the states promptly ensured that the Constitution would expressly protect the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” by adopting the Second Amendment. But the Framers understood human nature, and they could foresee a day when the fed- eral government would yield to the “en- croaching spirit of power,” as James Madi- son put in the Federalist Papers, and would invade the sovereign domain of the states and infringe the rights of the citizens. The Framers also knew that the states would be powerless to remedy the federal govern- ment’s encroachments if the process of amending the Constitution could be initiated only by Congress; as Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, “the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority” it claims. So the Framers wisely equipped the states with the means of reclaiming their sovereign powers and protecting the rights of their citizens, even in the face of con- gressional opposition. Article V vests the states with unilateral power to convene for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments and to control the amending process from beginning to end on all sub- stantive matters. The day foreseen by the Framers – the day when the federal government far exceeded the limits of its enumerated powers – arrived many years ago. The Framers took care in Article V to equip the people, acting through their state legislatures, with the power to put a stop to it. It is high time they used it. Charles J. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. Named by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Wash- ington, he has over 35 years of legal ex- perience in government and private prac- tice, with several appearances before the United States Supreme Court and scores of other successful cases on both the trial and appellate levels. Continued from front page The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V convention of the states, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does.  For ten years, Senator Tom Coburn served in the United States Senate as a voice for limited government and the values of Oklahomans. He has been described as one of the most sought after members on legislative strategy and thought. And now, he’s bringing those talents to the Conven- tion of States Project. Since joining Convention of States as Senior Advisor, Coburn has been traveling across the nation, sharing his vision with state legislators about why using Article V calling for a convention of the states is cru- cial for our nation at this time. In his recent testimony to the Texas House Federalism Committee, Coburn said, “[As a doctor], I know you don’t solve problems by treating the symptoms; you treat the disease. Our country has a disease.” Article V, he said, allows us to get past the symp- toms and treat the structural problems that threaten our future. Coburn brings his political savvy and gravitas alongside the hundreds of thousands of volunteers working in all fifty states, and Convention of States citizen activists in 97% of all state legislative districts, not to mention the endorsements of notable public figures like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Bobby Jindal, Colonel Allen West, Sarah Palin and many others. It’s not just his general political knowledge that makes him an asset to this project. “The federal government now reaches into every aspect of our lives in ways the Founders never imagined nor intended…[Americans] don’t need politicians, and unaccountable federal bureaucrats and administrators telling them how to live their lives.” Continued on back page Convention of States Senior Advisor: Senator Tom Coburn (Ret.) “After many years in Washington, one of the reasons I left was because I no longer believe that Washington is capable of reining itself in … the only avenue to change it is the one given to us by our Founders in the Constitution — an Article V Convention of States, where the people, not the politicians, are in charge.” COS-Coburn Flyer_Layout 1 9/1/15 2:45 PM Page 1  Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject His experience as Chairman of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee means that he knows exactly where our specific problems lie. “What most people don’t realize is that every single piece of government waste has a constituency,” says Coburn, “And most politicians don’t want to do anything to jeopardize their future elections. So they remain unresolved election cycle after election cycle, and the American people are stuck with the consequences. A Con- vention of States, on the other hand, can impose those restraints from the outside and secure our financial future.” Knowing that staying in power for many election cycles is a detriment to effective statesmanship, Senator Coburn has in- sisted on term-limiting himself in every office he has held. He says, “Our Founders never intended that there be a ruling class of career politicians. When members of Congress stay in Washington election after election, they become less concerned about working for their constituents and more concerned about keeping their power.” Imposing fiscal restraints and term limits are two of the three topics proposed by a Convention of States. The third—and most important— is the call to limit the power and ju- risdiction of the federal government. Coburn says, “The federal government now reaches into every aspect of our lives in ways the Founders never imagined nor intended. The people of this country are fully capable of governing themselves. They don’t need politicians, and unac- countable federal bureaucrats and admin- istrators telling them how to live their lives and run their businesses.” He continues, “This is the reason that the Convention of States was included in the Constitution in the first place. At the Con- stitutional Convention, George Mason, knowing that no amendments of the proper kind would ever be proposed from a tyran- nical federal government, suggested that the states have a method by which they could propose those necessary amend- ments. His suggestion—the Convention of States—was met with no debate and unan- imously agreed upon. Our Framers—in- cluding George Washington, James Madi- son, and Alexander Hamilton—all agreed that the American people should be able to take control of their country and govern themselves.” Without a doubt, Coburn believes the time for a Convention of States is now. “This is a movement whose time has come. Although I am a proud conservative, this is not a partisan issue. Politicians and bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power — no matter who is elected. Only through a Convention of States may the clear, unfettered voice of the people be heard and overreaching government be reined in. It’s time to return government to the people and realize again our Founders’ vision for self-governance.” Continued from front page George Mason Memorial, National Mall, DC “George Mason, knowing that no amendments of the proper kind would ever be proposed from a tyrannical federal government, suggested that the states have a method by which they could propose those necessary amendments.” COS-Coburn Flyer_Layout 1 9/1/15 2:45 PM Page 2  For nearly two decades, Jim DeMint made a name for himself in Washington fighting for freedom, limited govern- ment, and fiscal responsibility. Like for- mer Senator Tom Coburn, DeMint was known throughout our nation’s capital for his refusal to become just another Washington insider. He spoke up for the will of the people and the good of the nation, no matter how much oppo- sition he faced from the statist “elite” who call the shots in D.C. DeMint’s extensive experience in Washington has given him firsthand knowledge of the near-impossibility of making any significant changes from within the federal government. “I’ve tried to rein in Washington from inside the Senate,” DeMint said. “I’ve tried to elect good conservatives with the Senate Conservatives Fund. And as the President of the Heritage Foundation, I’ve worked to create and promote good conservative policy. “While all these things are important, the nation cannot be saved from within Washington, D.C. Only the people in the states can save the country, through a Convention of States that proposes constitutional amendments to fortify restrictions on federal power.” DeMint served in the U.S. House of Representatives for South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District from 1999–2005. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and served as one of South Carolina’s senators until he re- signed in 2012 to become President of the Heritage Foundation. With 18 years of political experience working both in- side and outside Congress, DeMint of- fers a wealth of wisdom and insight to Continued on back page Convention of States Project Senior Advisor: Senator Jim DeMint “Americans are sick and tired of the doubletalk coming out of Washington. So am I. After serving in the House, the Senate, and as President of the Heritage Foundation, I’ve finally realized the most important truth of our time: Washington, D.C., will never fix itself. Convention of States is the only solution.” — Jim DeMint  C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM E-mail: [email protected] (540) 441- 7 22 7 Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter.com/COSProject the volunteer grassroots armies that are reaching every state legislature in the country with the Convention of States Project’s message: We CAN take our power back. “Once I realized that Washington in- siders will never truly return decision- making power to the people and the states, I began to search for another way to rein in the federal government,” DeMint said. “When I learned about Article V and the Convention of States Project, I knew I had to get involved.” DeMint brings with him more than just legislative experience; he knows how to fight through opposition and make the tough calls for the benefit of the country. In 2009, DeMint was one of only two Senators who voted against Hillary Clinton’s appointment to Secretary of State. In 2010, he introduced an Oba- macare repeal as well as a bill that would have required congressional ap- proval of any major regulatory change made by a federal agency. While his col- leagues in Congress were working to get reelected, DeMint faithfully fought to uphold his pledge to defend the Con- stitution and the will of the people. “I’ve spent my career fighting against the same radical statist coalition that has aligned itself against the Convention of States Project,” DeMint said. “I’m ex- cited to get outside the beltway and work with the grassroots to continue that fight. Through Article V, the people and the states have more power than I ever did in D.C. I can’t wait to come alongside the COS state teams, offer my support, and watch what these citizen activists can accomplish.” To those few sincere Americans who still fear the Article V process, DeMint had this to say: “I understand there are those who be- lieve electing more ‘good’ leaders to D.C. will solve our nation’s problems. Take it from me – it won’t. The few who fight for the people will always be overwhelmed by the deep state bureau- crats, the statist congressmen, and the activist judges. “Only a Convention of States can truly limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and I’m thrilled to be a small part of this his- toric movement.” Continued from front page To those few sincere Americans who still fear the Article V process, DeMint had this to say: “I understand there are those who believe electing more ‘good’ leaders to D.C. will solve our nation’s problems. Take it from me – it won’t. The few who fight for the people will always be overwhelmed by the deep state bureaucrats, the statist congressmen, and the activist judges.”  “I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in call- ing for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our broken Constitution,” Abbott said, bringing a room of Texas policymakers to their feet in support of the Convention of States resolution. Governor Abbott has demonstrated tremen- dous courage and leadership in placing his support firmly behind Convention of States, which gives state lawmakers a powerful tool to fight back against an overbearing federal government. Under the Convention of States resolu- tion, commissioners to the convention can discuss proposals for constitutional reforms on three topics: fiscal restraints on the federal government, term limits on federal officials, and limits on the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Abbott's Texas Plan fits nicely within this framework. Nearly 100 pages long with more than 350 footnotes, the Texas Plan is a comprehensive look at the need for an Article V Convention of States. “The President changes laws with a pen. Congress sees no need to root their laws in constitutional principles. The judiciary rewrites laws and freely amends the Con- stitution,” said Abbott, emphasizing that Article V is the constitutional mechanism the states can utilize to fix the cracks in the system. Moreover, Governor Abbott’s support is unique in that he had made Convention of States the primary agenda item of his administration. In fact, the Texas Plan was specifically designed to fit within— and only within—the Convention of States resolution! “The Texas Plan does what so desperately needs to be done—it puts teeth into the Tenth Amendment,” Abbott said. “That is the best way to restore the states and the people as guardians of our Constitution.” The Texas Plan harkens back to James Madison’s Virginia Plan, which largely defined the agenda of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Likewise, Abbott’s plan puts forward nine bold solutions for the Convention of States commissioners to consider—solutions that would systematically restore power to the people and to the states. “The Founders gave us the tool to chart our own destiny,” said Abbott. “That tool is Article V of the United States Constitution. The Framers included it, be- cause they knew that citizens are the ulti- mate defense against an overreaching fed- eral government.” “I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our broken Constitution,” Abbott said, bringing a room of Texas policymakers to their feet in support of the Convention of States resolution. Continued on back page Texas Governor Abbott Supports Convention of States In one bold declaration, Texas Governor Greg Abbott both shocked the political world and energized a growing movement to restore the rule of law in America. Governor Greg Abbott  By taking this historic step, Governor Abbott has demonstrated that he is committed to helping the states call an Article V Convention of States to propose meaningful constitutional reforms that would dramatically expand liberty and prosperity for all Americans. The Texas Plan includes proposals that would: • Permit two-thirds of the states to collectively overturn a federal law, regulation, or Supreme Court ruling • Restore the Commerce Clause to its original intent • Require Congress to balance the federal budget • Require a supermajority of the Supreme Court to override any democratically enacted law • Permit state officials to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds • Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state and federal law. In his speech, Governor Abbott recalled the time when Franklin was asked what kind of government the Framers had proposed at the Philadelphia Convention. “A republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin famously declared. “Let us heed the advice of our Founders,” Abbott said. “If we are going to keep the republic that Franklin said we got — if we are going to fight for, protect, and hand onto the next generation the freedom that Reagan spoke of—then we the people have to the take the lead to restore the rule of law in the United States.” Convention of States is developing the largest grassroots army in the nation. We recently surpassed 1.3 million supporters, with volunteer leadership in all 50 states. Convention of States allows citizens to engage in the only constitutional solution to restore the balance of power and return America to its founding principles. “Franklin knew that if the three branches of government strayed, there was a fourth group to rein them in,” Abbott said. “They identified that fourth group in the first three words of the United States Consti- tution—We the People.” With Governor Abbott’s steadfast support, we are confident that Convention of States will be a success. “Every generation of Americans must face Franklin’s challenge,” Abbott said. “Do we have the will to keep our republic?” Before he became the 48 th Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott distinguished himself as the longest-serving Attorney General in Texas history and was also a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court. His sharp legal mind and experience in litigating states’ rights makes his support for Convention of States all the more powerful. Continued from front page Governor Abbott has demonstrated that he is committed to helping the states call an Article V Convention of States to propose meaningful constitutional reforms that would dramatically expand liberty and prosperity for all Americans. Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject PLEASE ACT NOW Visit ConventionOfStates.com to learn more and sign the petition calling for a Convention of States!  “Using the Constitution to Save the Constitution.” The Problem Our nation is in peril. The public widely believes that America is headed in the wrong direction. They believe the future prospects are troubling, not only for this generation but for generations to come. The monstrous fed- eral debt, the power grabs of the federal courts, and the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government could ultimately result in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The Solution Our current situation is precisely what the Founders feared. They knew the federal government might one day become drunk with power, so they gave us a solution in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Article V says that upon successful ‘application’ by 34 states, the states can convene a Convention of States to propose constitutional amendments. Under the Convention of States Project resolution, these amendments would be limited to imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power of the federal government, and mandating term limits. This would allow proposed amendments that limit executive orders, federal spending and taxation, and terms of office for Congress and the Supreme Court. What kind of amendments would you propose? These amendments only become part of the Constitution after they are ratified by 38 states, rendering the “runaway convention” objection virtually unthinkable. When 38 states agree on something, it’s not a runaway — it’s a mandate! The Strategy Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations: 1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), addresses only one of a number of issues. The Convention of States application allows for multiple amendments to be considered for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. This will allow for the states to provide a solution as big as the problem in D.C. 2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a grassroots organization in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. But only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed. Join Us The movement is spreading. Millions of Americans along with thought leaders and members of the media are joining the Convention of States Project as endorsers, supporters, and volunteers. PLEASE ACT NOW! Visit COSAction.com to learn more and sign the petition calling for a Convention of States! “States rise up against Washington” “Convention of States Trying to Unleash Power of Citizenry” “I have whole- heartedly endorsed the Convention of States Project.” “State-led push to force convention to amend Constitution gains steam, with high-profile Republican support” “Coburn: A Convention of States can restore our Constitution” “U. S. Term Limits Endorses the Convention of States Project”  “I’m a big supporter of [a Convention of States]. I like what you’re doing. I hope you get it accomplished.” Sean Hannity (540) 441- 7 22 7 | ConventionOfStates.com | Facebook.com/ ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/ COSProject “Thank goodness the founders had the wisdom to provide us with Article V of the Constitution. I support the efforts to gather a constitutional Convention of States consistent with Article V and honoring the 10 th Amendment.” Colonel Allen West “There is not enough politic al will in Washington to fix the real p roblems facing the country. It’s time for the people to take back their co untry. The plan put forth by Conventio n of States is a great way to do just that by using the proce ss the Founders gave us for reining in the federal gover nment.” Senator Tom Coburn Endorsements “We need ter m limits and a balanced bud get amendme nt, and Congress is n ever going to give it to us. That's wh y I support an Article V Convention o f States.” Senator Marc o Rubio “We can, and we must scale back the monstrosity that our federal government has become. For this reason, I support the Convention of States project efforts to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to restrain the size of the federal government.” Governor Bobby Jindal “[Our nation’s] prob lems are not going to be solved in Was hington D.C.… We’ve got to take th e power back. I can’t think of a bett er way of doing it [than Convention of States], because Washington is not g oing to give up pow er.” Senator Ron Johns on “I have reviewed their plan and it is both innovative and realistic. I urge you to join me in supporting the Convention of States Project .” Mike Huckabee “I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our broken Constitution.” Governor Greg Abbott Mark Levin When asked if he endorsed Convention of States, Ben Car son commented, “Very much so… our founders knew that there would probably come a time w hen you might have to make some adjustments to the Constitutio n.” “I have whole-heartedly endorsed the Convention of States Project. I serve on its Legal Board of Reference because they propose a solution as big as the problem.” Ben Carson   A Handbook for Legislators and Citizens Fourth Edition COSAction.com  INSIDE FRONT COVER Blank  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Washington, D.C., Is Out of Control and Will Not Relinquish Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Founders Gave Us a Solution: A Convention of States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 How Our Proposal Differs from Other Article V Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Our Political Plan to Call a Convention of States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Why a Convention of States Is the Safest Alternative to Preserve Our Liberty. . . . . . 10 We Know How a Convention of States Would Operate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Action Steps for Legislators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Action Steps for Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Model Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 “Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the ‘Runaway Convention’ Myth” by Michael Farris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Excerpts from “Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ ” by Professor Robert G. Natelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Pledge Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k Table of Contents The Case for a Convention of States A Solution As BIG As The Problem!  PAGE 2 Blank  The public widely believes our nation is headed in the wrong direction. They believe that future prospects are troubling, not only for this generation but for generations to come. The public is correct. What is not widely known is that the Constitution itself provides a real, effective solution. Mark Levin’s bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments , has opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the possibility of stopping the federal abuses of power through a Convention of States. Although we began the COS Project independently, our plan is a near-perfect match with Levin’s ideas. The plan we propose does not commit us to any particular amendments. That will be up to the states when they convene. But it does commit us to a particular subject—proposed amendments must be designed to limit the power of the federal government. Introduction 3 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k  Washington, D.C., Is Out of Control and Will Not Relinquish Power We see four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government: • The Spending and Debt Crisis • The Regulatory Crisis • Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty • Federal Takeover of Decision Making These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government “softens, bends, and guides” men’s wills. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming, as Alexis de Tocqueville warned in 1840, nothing more than “a flock of timid and industrious ani- mals, of which the government is the shepherd.” 1. The Spending and Debt Crisis The $20 trillion national debt is stag- gering, but it only tells a part of the story. If we apply the normal rules of business accounting, the federal government owes at least $100 trillion more in vested Social Security bene- fits and other programs. This is why the government cannot tax its way out of debt. Even if it confiscated every- thing owned by private citizens and companies, there would still not be enough to cover the debt. 2. The Regulatory Crisis The federal bureaucracy has created a complex, contradictory regulatory scheme that is crushing businesses. Little accountability exists when unelected bureaucrats—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law. Research from the American Enterprise Institute, shows that since 1949 federal regulations have lowered the real GDP growth by 2% and made America 72% poorer. 3. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty For years, Congress has been using federal grants to keep the states under its control. By attaching mandates to federal grants, Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than treating them as truly inde- pendent republican governments. A radical social agenda and an erosion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While substantial efforts have been made to combat federal expansion and protect peoples’ rights, we have missed one of the most impor- tant principles of the American found- ing. State legislatures need to be free to implement the will of the voters in their own states, not the will of Congress. 4 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming, as Alexis de Tocqueville warned, nothing more than ‘a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.’ ”  4. Federal Takeover of the Decision Making Process The Founders believed the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. There were to be checks and balances at the federal level. And everything not specif- ically granted to Congress for legisla- tive control was to be left to the states and the people. Collusion among decision makers in Washington, D.C., has overrun these checks and balances. The federal judi- ciary supports Congress and the White House in their ever-escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states. This is more than an attack on the inde- pendence of the states. This robs the people of their most fundamental lib- erty—the right of self-governance. We need to realize that the structure of decision making matters. Who decides what the law will be is even more important than what is decided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated. Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed a constitutional challenge to the federal spending power by acknowledging its approval of pro- grams that violate the original meaning of the Constitution: This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimag- inable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitu- tion were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role. New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992). This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Wash- ington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than secur- ing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past. 5 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “We need to realize that the structure of decision-making matters. Who decides what the law will be is even more important than what is decided.” “This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish power — no matter who is elected.”  Most people don’t know that there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution. 1. Two-thirds of each house of Con- gress agrees to propose a particular amendment; or 2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures pass applications for an amend- ments convention. The Founders knew the federal govern- ment might one day become drunk with power. The most important check to this power is Article V. Article V gives states the authority to hold a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. By calling a Convention of States, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the fed- eral courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use. After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 state legisla- tures for ratification. Congress must choose one of two “modes of ratifica- tion.” They can either submit the amendments to state conventions elected for that purpose or to the state legislatures. Either way, three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified. Congress has no authority to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that. We are approaching a crossroads. One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance. Which will you choose? The Founders Gave Us a Solution: A Convention of States 6 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “By calling a Convention of States, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power.”  7 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k 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 Amend- ments, 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. Article V, U.S. Constitution A story from the Convention of 1787: “On September 15, as the Convention was reviewing the revisions made by the Committee of Style, George Mason expressed opposition to the provisions limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. According to the Convention records, Mason thought that ‘no amend- ments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.’ In response, Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry made a motion to amend the article to reintroduce language requiring that a convention be called when two - thirds of the States applied for an amendment.” 30 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 1005, 1007 (2007).  We believe our strategy gives us an excellent chance of success. Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V efforts: 1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a par- ticular amendment . Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal govern- ment. 2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a grassroots network in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state legislative district (that’s 3,000 districts). We believe this is very realistic. Through the support of the American people this project will succeed. We Have a Solution As Big As the Problem Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Convention of States Action urges state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a conven- tion for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a bal- anced budget amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that COSA fully supports. Congress, how- ever, could comply with a balanced budget amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper fed- eral regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates. No current Article V proposal has been able to reach the 34 state applications needed to call a Convention of States. There is not enough momentum behind any one amendment. The Convention of States Project allows all these Article V efforts to combine, giving them the collective force necessary to call a convention. Once called, the delegates will be able to debate and propose a complete pack- age of restraints on all branches of the federal government. This is what our plan will do. It would allow ALL amendments germane to “limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” to be considered. What Sort of Amendments Could Be Passed? The following are examples of amend- ment topics that could be proposed at a Convention of States: • A balanced budget amendment • Reducing federal spending power (fixing the General Welfare Clause) • Reducing federal regulatory power (fixing the Commerce Clause) • A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States • A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since the Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws) • Imposing real checks and balances on the Supreme Court (such as term limits) • Placing a limit on federal taxation Of course, these are merely examples of what could be up for discussion. So long as a proposed amendment relates to lim- iting the power of the federal govern- ment, the Convention of States itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to for- mally propose any amendments. American citizens have become so frus- trated with runaway federal power that they have begun discussing ideas like nullification and even secession. Such ideas are not only impractical; they could ultimately lead to a violent con- flict. We need not turn to such dangerous alternatives. The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal govern- ment. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution. How Our Proposal Differs from Other Article V Plans 8 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government.”  The Grassroots The leadership of the COS Project believes the success of a Convention of States depends directly on American citizens. Our plan is not only simple, it is realistic : • We will build a strong grassroots net- work that is active in all 50 states. • There are approximately 5,000 state house districts across all 50 states. Our goal is to have active volunteers in at least 3,000 of these districts. • We will have 3,000 district captains who will organize at least 100 people in each district to contact their state legislators to support a convention of states, and turn out at least 25 people per district at legislative hearings. Legislators must know that our grass- roots team will have their backs if they support a Convention of States. A wide- spread grassroots organization has been missing from the Article movements of the past. COSA’s President, Mark Meckler, was the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots — the largest tea party group in the country. Michael Farris is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. As such, he brings with him over 30 years of grassroots leadership and activism in all 50 states. Eric O’Keefe was the lead organizer for the term limits movement that resulted in 23 states passing ballot initiatives to that effect. We not only have experi- enced staff for this project, but we are also networking with like-minded coali- tion members across America. The strategic advantage of a fresh start on the application process is that we will be building current grassroots opera- tions in all of the states needed to ratify any proposed amendments, and have them all addressed at one convention. If one of the existing proposals (such as the balanced budget applications) achieved 34 valid applications, CSG certainly would support it as well. Unfortunately, the balanced budget plan relies on applications that were enacted ten, twenty, and thirty years ago. The grassroots organizations that achieved those victories are long gone. Starting fresh insures that we have current grassroots operations in all the states necessary to actually ratify any proposed amendments. Starting fresh also allows us to avoid any legal difficulties that may arise dur- ing the “aggregation” process. Applica- tions must deal with the same issue in order for them to be counted towards the necessary 34 states (or, in order for them to be “aggregated”). Many of the bal- anced budget applications, for example, are sufficiently different that they may be subject to legal challenge when the time comes to determine which states are included in the count. It is unlikely all balanced budget applications cur- rently pending will be successfully aggregated. Our model application lays out a unified text that can be adopted in every state, eliminating legal concerns about aggregation. Thus, there is both a legal advantage (clear aggregation) and a political advantage (current grassroots network- ing) to a fresh start on the application process. Moreover, we will have a greater ability to protect our liberty by addressing the full scope of the prob- lems in Washington, D.C., through a Convention of States. This unique strategy combined with strong grassroots support will provide a clear path to victory. Only one question remains. Will you help? Our Political Plan to Call a Convention of States 9 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k The success of a Convention of States depends directly on the American citizens.  The most common objection to an Arti- cle V convention envisions a doomsday scenario where delegates disregard the purpose of the convention, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. This has been called the “runaway conven- tion” scenario, and it is based on fear and misinformation. Here are the facts: 1. There is a clear, strong single-sub- ject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applica- tions from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states on the same subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Professor Robert G. Natelson’s essay on page 19). 2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment. The chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero. 3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. Efforts to change the Article V process midstream have been held unconstitutional by federal courts. (See Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 [D. Idaho 1981].) The head of the Convention of States Project, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for several Washington state legislators in that litigation. 4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway conven- tion. Many opponents of a Conven- tion of States make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an ille- gal runaway convention. This argu- ment was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. The truth is that the new process for adopting the Consti- tution was unanimously approved by both the Congress and all 13 states as required by the Articles of Confederation. (See “Can We Trust the Constitution?” by Michael Farris on page 17.) Thus, there are multiple lines of defense against any amendment that departs from the original subject: (1) A majority of states at the Conven- tion would almost certainly vote such a proposal to be out of order; (2) Any changes in the Article V process, like the proposal of a rogue amendment, would be challenged in court and struck down; (3) It only takes 13 states to defeat any such proposal at the ratifica- tion stage; (4) There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway con- vention. American citizens must evaluate the rel- ative safety of two choices. Should we allow our runaway federal government to continue to abuse the Constitution and the rights of the people, with the vague hope that someday Washington, D.C., will see the light and relinquish power? Or should we call a Convention of States, trusting that one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of the convention process? At the end of the day, we must trust either Congress or the states. Recent history makes that an easy choice. Washington, D.C., is clearly the greatest danger to our liberty. We believe the choice is clear. A Con- vention of States is the safest path to preserve self-government and liberty. Why a Convention of States Is the Safest Alternative to Preserve Our Liberty 10 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “At the end of the day, we must trust either Congress or the States. Recent history makes that an easy choice. Washington, D.C., is clearly the greatest danger to our liberty.”  Convention opponents claim we know nothing about how a Convention of States would function. They say that no precedent exists for such a convention, and it should be avoided due to all the unknowns. The historical record shows us that these assertions are plainly false. History tells us how a Convention of States would operate. Interstate conven- tions were common during the Found- ing Era, and the rules and procedures for such conventions were widely accepted. (For more on this historical precedent see Professor Natelson’s arti- cle on page 19.) According to Professor Robert Natelson, leading expert on the Article V process, we know that: • The “convention for proposing amendments” was consciously mod- eled on multi-state conventions held during the century leading up to the Constitutional Convention, when states or colonies met together every few years. There are well-established rules from these conventions that would govern any convention today. • There have been at least 36 multi-state conventions in American history. Not a single one exceeded its prescribed mandate—not even the Constitutional Convention, despite anti-historical claims to the contrary. • A Convention of States is a meeting of sovereign state governments, and each state has one vote. Each state commissioner is empowered and instructed by his or her state legislature. • Congress’s call for the convention cannot determine how many dele- gates each state sends or how they are chosen. That is a matter for each state legislature to decide. • The state legislatures’ applications fix the subject matter for a convention for proposing amendments. When two- thirds of the states apply on a given subject, Congress must call the con- vention. Congress’ power is limited to setting the initial time and place of meeting. Article V does not lay out the proce- dural rules for a convention because the Founders knew them so well. They knew how an Article V convention would operate because they held con- ventions themselves on a regular basis. These well-established rules are still in place and still binding on a convention held today. We Know How a Convention of States Would Operate 11 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “The convention for proposing amendments is called to propose solutions to discrete, pre-assigned problems.” “When two- thirds of the states apply on a given subject, Congress must call the convention.”  To call a Convention of States, 34 state legislatures must pass applications on the same subject matter. Governors play no official role in this process. A simple majority vote is enough to pass the application unless the state legislature has adopted prior rules requiring a dif- ferent number. “Aggregation” is the most important issue for legislators to consider. Will one state’s application be counted toward the required 34-state majority, or will it be considered distinct from those of other states? The great variety of applications for a proposed balanced budget amendment demonstrates the problem. Most legal scholars believe that a handful of the existing applica- tions will be considered sufficiently dis- tinct to deny aggregation status in a final count. The best plan is for state legislatures to adopt applications with operative language that is identical or as close to identical as possible. The COS model application is contained in the Appendix on page 16. This model application was drafted in consultation with a wide range of constitutional scholars, legislators, and citizen activists. Action Steps for Legislators 12 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “The best plan is for state legislatures to adopt applications with operative language that is identical or as close to identical as possible.”  Ultimately, the success of a Convention of States depends on the citizens of the United States. The grassroots will be the engine that drives this project. If Amer- icans are willing to sacrifice their time and energy, there is still a chance to halt the tyrannical abuses of the federal government. In each state, we will appoint three state-wide volunteer leaders: the State Director, Legislative Liaison, and Coalitions Director. These individuals will organize the movement across the state, coordinating volunteers, con- necting with state legislators, and build- ing the grassroots network. In each state legislative district, a District Captain will be appointed to coordinate and mobilize volunteers in their district. There are a number of ways volunteers will be able to be involved in helping move the project forward: • Recruiting friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to join the effort. • Writing letters, making calls, and visiting state legislator’s offices to encourage them to support a Conven- tion of States. • Attending legislative hearings to show support for a Convention of States. • Organizing and speaking at events in your area as a representative for COS. For more information about leadership job descriptions and volunteer opportu- nities visit visit www.cosaction.com. The Founders gave us the tools to curb the federal abuse of power. It’s time we stand up and use them to preserve liberty—not only for ourselves but for posterity. Action Steps for Citizens 13 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “The grassroots will be the engine that drives this project.”  Mark Meckler Convention of States Action, President B.A. in English Literature, San Diego State University J.D., with honors, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Mark Meckler is the founder and President of Convention of States Action, an organization created specifically to call a Convention of States and ratify amendments to limit the power and jurisdiction of Washington, D.C. Meckler is widely regarded as one of the most effective and well-networked grassroots organizers in the nation and is regularly called on for political commentary in all forms of media. Meckler is the co-founder and former National Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, the largest tea party organization in the nation. He left the organization in February 2012 to work more broadly on expanding the self-governance movement beyond the partisan divide. As the President of COSA, Meckler makes sure that the Convention of States Project is fully and appropriately funded, staffed and managed, with a focus on strict stewardship of donor dollars for maximum leverage and effect. Meckler is also personally involved in all media and public relations efforts. Meckler and his wife Patty live in Northern California with their teenage children, where they share a love of outdoor recreation and equestrian activities. Eric O’Keefe Convention of States Action, Chairman, Board of Directors Eric O’Keefe has a 25-year history as an active strategist, board member, and donor with organizations working to advance individual liberty, promote citizen engagement and restore con- stitutional governance. O’Keefe helped found U.S. Term Lim- its in 1991, and in recent years, co-founded the Campaign for Primary Accountability, the Health Care Compact Alliance, and Citizens for Self-Governance. O’Keefe is also a founding board member of the Center for Competitive Politics and Cit- izens in Charge Foundation. O’Keefe’s book on the corruption of Congress, “Who Rules America,” won praise from the late freedom advocate Milton Friedman. O’Keefe also serves on the board of directors of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which has been active defending Gov. Walker’s agenda during legislative campaigns, recall campaigns, and legislative races. When he is not engaged in political activities, O’Keefe is a private investor based in rural Wisconsin, where he and his wife raised three children. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. Convention of States Action, Senior Advisor Dr. Tom Coburn served in the United States Senate from 2005-2015 and in the United States House of Representatives from 1995-2001. During his time in the Senate, Coburn served as Chairman and Ranking Member of several committees. He was a reliable champion of smaller govern- ment and worked tirelessly to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Congress. He is perhaps best known for his advocacy of fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. Having observed that Congress was never going to fix itself, Coburn left the U.S. Senate early in December 2014 to become a grassroots activist. In January 2015, Coburn joined Convention of States Action as Senior Advisor. Coburn is a family physician, having earned his M.D. with honors from the University of Oklahoma Medical School. During his three-decade medical career in Muskogee, Oklahoma, he treated over 15,000 patients and delivered more than 4,000 babies. He also holds a B.S. in Accounting, with honors, from Oklahoma State University. Coburn and his wife, Carolyn, have been married since 1968 and have 3 children and 5 grandchildren. Leadership of the Convention of States Project 14 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k  15 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k Model Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 “Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the ‘Runaway Convention’ Myth” by Michael Farris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Excerpts from “Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ ” by Professor Robert G. Natelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Pledge Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix We want you to have all of the information you need to get involved. Please see the materials we’ve gathered for you to be the most informed person in your community. It’ll take hard work, but it’s time to spread the word!  Whereas , the Founders of our Constitution empowered State Legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government, and Whereas , the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending, and Whereas , the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent, and Whereas , the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and Whereas , it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people—particularly for the generations to come—to propose Amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power, Be it therefore resolved by the legislature of the State of _______________: Section 1. The legislature of the State of _________ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States 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. Section 2. The secretary of state is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and copies to the members of the said Senate and House of Representatives from this State; also to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their cooperation. Section 3. This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject. Application for a Convention of the States Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution 16 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k  Some people contend that our Consti- tution was illegally adopted as the result of a “runaway convention.” They make two claims: 1. The convention delegates were instructed to merely amend the Articles of Confederation, but they wrote a whole new document. 2. The ratification process was improperly changed from 13 state legislatures to 9 state ratification conventions. The Delegates Obeyed Their Instructions from the States The claim that the delegates disobeyed their instructions is based on the idea that Congress called the Constitutional Convention. Proponents of this view assert that Congress limited the dele- gates to amending the Articles of Con- federation. 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 Conven- tion. The delegates from the 5 states par- ticipating at Annapolis concluded that a broader convention was needed to address the nation’s concerns. They named the date and place (Philadelphia; second Monday in May). The Annapolis delegates said they were going to work to “procure the concur- rence of the other States in the appoint- ment of Commissioners.” The goal of the upcoming convention was “to render the constitution of the Federal Govern- ment adequate for the exigencies of the Union.” What role was Congress to play in call- ing the Convention? None. The Annapolis delegates sent copies of their resolution to Congress solely “from motives of respect.” What authority did the Articles of Con- federation give to Congress to call such a Convention? None. The power of Congress under the Articles was strictly limited, and there was no theory of implied powers. The states possessed residual sovereignty which included the power to call this convention. Seven state legislatures agreed to send delegates to the Constitutional Conven- tion prior to the time that Congress acted to endorse it . The states told their delegates that the purpose of the Con- vention 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 Conven- tion on February 21, 1787. It did not pur- port to “call” the Convention or give instructions to the delegates. It merely proclaimed that “in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient” for the Con- vention 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 dele- gates. 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”). Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering The “Runaway Convention” Myth Michael Farris, JD, LLM Chancellor, Patrick Henry College Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Citizens for Self-Governance 17 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k Continued to page 18 We can’t walk boldly into our future, without first understanding our history.  Can We Trust The Constitution? Answering The “Runaway Convention” Myth Continued from page 17 18 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k History tells the story. The Constitution was legally adopted. Now, let’s move on to getting our nation back to the greatness the Founders originally envisioned. 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 del- egates.” He said: “The powers of the convention ought, in strictness, to be determined by an inspection of the com- missions 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. The Ratification Process Was Properly Changed The Articles of Confederation required any amendments to be approved by Congress and ratified by all 13 state leg- islatures. Moreover, the Annapolis Con- vention and a clear majority of the states insisted that any amendments coming from the Constitutional Convention would have to be approved in this same manner—by Congress and all 13 state legislatures. The reason for this rule can be found in principles of international law. At the time, the states were sovereigns. The Articles of Confederation were, in essence, a treaty between 13 sovereign nations. Normally, the only way changes in a treaty can be ratified is by the approval of all parties to the treaty. However, a treaty can provide for some- thing less than unanimous approval if all the parties agree to a new approval process before it goes into effect. This is exactly what the Founders did. When the Convention sent its draft of the Constitution to Congress, it also rec- ommended a new ratification process. Congress approved both the Constitu- tion itself and the new process. Along with changing the number of required states from 13 to 9, the new rat- ification process required that state con- ventions ratify the Constitution rather than state legislatures. This was done in accord with the preamble of the Consti- tution—the Supreme Law of the Land would be ratified in the name of “We the People” rather than “We the States.” But before this change in ratification could be valid, all 13 state legislatures would also have to consent to the new method. All 13 state legislatures did just this by calling conventions of the people to vote on the merits of the Constitution. Twelve states held popular elections to vote for delegates. Rhode Island made every voter a delegate and held a series of town meetings to vote on the Consti- tution. Thus, every state legislature con- sented to the new ratification process thereby validating the Constitution’s requirements for ratification. Those who claim to be constitutionalists while contending that the Constitution was illegally adopted are undermining themselves. It is like saying George Washington was a great American hero, but he was also a British spy. I stand with the integrity of our Founders who properly drafted and properly ratified the Constitution.  Overview Of Prior American Experience With Conventions […] A. Conventions Before the Constitution The Founders understood a political “convention” to be an assembly, other than a legislature, designed to undertake prescribed governmental functions. The convention was a familiar and approved device: several generations of English- men and Americans had resorted to them. In 1660 a “convention Parlia- ment” had recalled the Stuart line, in the person of Charles II, to the throne of England. A 1689 convention Parliament had adopted the English Bill of Rights, declared the throne vacant, and invited William and Mary to fill it. Also in 1689, Americans resorted to at least four conventions in three different colonies as mechanisms to replace unpopular colonial governments, and in 1719 they held yet another. During the run-up to Independence, conventions within particular colonies issued protests, operated as legislatures when the de jure legislature had been dissolved, and removed British officials and governed in their absence. After Independence, conventions wrote sev- eral state constitutions. Those state constitutions also resorted to conventions as elements of their amendment procedures. The Pennsyl- vania Constitution of 1776 and the Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention For Proposing Amendments” Professor Robert G. Natelson The Independence Institute; Montana Policy Institute April 22, 2012 65 Fla. L. Rev. 615 (2013) [The following is an excerpt from Professor Robert G. Natelson’s Florida Law Review article titled below. For brevity all citations have been removed. It can be downloaded in full at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2044296. These excerpts are reprinted here with the permission of the Florida Law Review and Professor Robert G. Natelson.] 19 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k Continued to page 20 “The convention was a familiar and approved device: several generations of Englishmen and Americans had resorted to them.” The Founders knew how a convention would operate and we do too.  20 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k Vermont Constitution of 1786 both authorized amendments conventions limited as to subjects by a “council of censors.” The Massachusetts Constitu- tion of 1780 provided for amendment by convention. The Georgia Constitu- tion of 1777 required the legislature to call a convention to draft constitutional amendments whose gist had been pre- scribed by a majority of counties. Conventions within individual colonies or states represented the people, towns, or counties. Another sort of “conven- tion” was a gathering of three or more American governments under protocols modeled on international diplomatic practice. These multi-government conventions were comprised of delega- tions from each participating govern- ment, including, on some occasions, Indian tribes. Before Independence, such gatherings often were called “con- gresses,” because “congress” was an established term for a gathering of sov- ereignties. After Independence, they were more often called “conventions,” presumably to avoid confusion with the Continental and Confederation Con- gresses. But both before and after Inde- pendence the terms could be employed interchangeably. Multi-government congresses or con- ventions were particularly common in the Northeast, perhaps because govern- ments in that region had a history of working together. In 1643 the four colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth Colony, Connecticut, and New Haven formed the United Colonies of New England. Essentially a joint standing committee of colonial legislatures, this association was not always active, but endured at least formally until 1684. In 1695, the Crown created the Dominion of New England, a unified government imposed on New England, New York, and New Jersey. The Dominion proved unpopular, and in 1689 colonial con- ventions swept it away; nevertheless, northeastern governments continued to confer together. Many of these meetings were conclaves of colonial governors, usually conferring on issues of defense against French Canada and her allied Indian tribes, rather than conven- tions of diplomatic delegations. An example from outside the Northeast was the meeting of five governors held at Alexandria, Virginia in 1755. Many others, however, were full-dress conventions among commissioners appointed from three or more colonies. These meetings were usually, but not always, held under the sanction of royal authorities. To be specific: Three colonies met at Boston in 1689 to discuss defense issues. The following year, the acting New York lieutenant governor called, without royal sanction, a defense con- vention of most of the continental colonies to meet in New York City. The meeting was held on May 1, 1690, with New York, Massachusetts Bay, Con- necticut, and Plymouth colonies in attendance. A similar gathering occurred in 1693 in New York, this time under Crown auspices. Other defense conventions were held in New York City in 1704, Boston in 1711, Albany in 1744 and 1745, and New York City in 1747. The New England colonies held yet another in 1757. In addition to defense conventions, there were conventions serving as diplomatic meetings among colonies and sovereign Indian tribes, particularly the Iroquois. There were at least ten such conclaves between 1677 and 1768 involving three or more colonies. Those ten included gatherings in 1677, 1689, 1694, and 1722 at Albany, New York; in 1744 at Lancaster, Pennsylvania; in 1745, 1746, 1751, and 1754 at Albany; and in 1768 at Fort Stanwix (Rome), New York. The assembly at Lancaster became one of the more noted. Participants included Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and several Indian tribes. The proceedings lasted from June 22 to July 4, 1744, and produced the Treaty of Lancaster. Even more important, however, was the seven-colony Albany Congress of 1754, whose proceedings are discussed in Part IV.A. The most famous inter-colonial conven- tions were the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 and the First Continental Con- gress of 1774, discussed in Parts IV.B and IV.C. As for the Second Continental Congress (1775-81), participants might initially have thought of it as a conven- tion, but it is not so classified here because it really served as a continuing legislature. After the colonies had declared them- selves independent states, they contin- ued to gather in conventions. All of these meetings were called to address specific issues of common concern. Northeastern states convened twice in Providence, Rhode Island—in Decem- ber, 1776 and January, 1777, and again in 1781. Other conventions of north- eastern states met in Springfield, Mas- sachusetts (1777); New Haven, Connecticut (1778); Hartford, Con- necticut (1779 and 1780); and Boston, Massachusetts (1780). Conventions that included states outside the Northeast included those at York Town, Pennsyl- vania (1777), Philadelphia, Pennsylva- nia (1780 and, of course, 1787), and Annapolis, Maryland (1786). There also were abortive calls for multi- state conventions in Fredericksburg, Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention For Proposing Amendments” Continued from page 19  Virginia, Charleston, South Carolina, and elsewhere. Thus, the Constitutional Convention of 1787—far from being the unique event it is often assumed to be— was but one in a long line of similar gatherings. Conclusion: What Prior Conventions Tell Us About The Convention For Proposing Amendments As noted above, Founding-Era customs assist us in understanding the attributes and procedures inherent in a “conven- tion for proposing amendments,” and the powers and prerogatives of the actors in the process. This Conclusion draws on the historical material col- lected above, together with the brief constitutional text, to outline those attributes and procedures. The previous record of American con- ventions made it clear that a convention for proposing amendments was to be, like its immediate predecessors, an inter-governmental diplomatic gather- ing—a “convention of the states” or “convention of committees.” It was to be a forum in which state delegations could meet on the basis of sovereign equality. Its purpose is to put the “states in convention assembled” on equal footing with Congress in proposing amendments. Founding-Era practice informs us that Article V applications and calls may ask for either a plenipotentiary convention or one limited to pre-defined subjects. Most American multi-government gath- erings had been limited to one or more subjects, and the ratification-era record shows affirmatively that the Founders expected that most conventions for pro- posing amendments would be similarly limited. Founding-Era practice informs us also that commissioners at an amendments convention were to oper- ate under agency law and remain within the limits of their commissions. Neither the record of Founding Era conventions nor the ratification debates offer signif- icant support for the modern claim that a convention cannot be limited. The only Founding Era efforts to insert in a convention call prescriptions other than time, place, and subject-matter were abortive. When Massachusetts presumed to set the voting rules while calling a third Hartford convention, two of the four states invited refused to par- ticipate. In the few instances in which convention calls suggested how sover- eign governments should select their commissioners, some of those govern- ments disregarded the suggestions, but their commissioners were seated any- way. This record therefore suggests that a convention call, as the Constitution uses the term, may not include legally- binding terms other than time, place, and subject. However, the occasional Founding-Era practice of making calls and applications conditional and of r e s c i n d i n g t h e m s u g g e s t s t h a t Article V applications and calls also may be made conditional or rescinded. In accordance with Founding-Era prac- tice, states are free to honor or reject calls, as they choose. Universal pre-constitutional practice tells us that states may select, commis- sion, instruct, and pay their delegates as they wish, and may alter their instruc- tions and recall them. Although the states may define the subject and instruct their commissioners to vote in a certain way, the convention as a whole 21 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k “History and the constitutional text inform us that a convention for proposing amendments is, like its direct predecessors, a multi-government proposing convention.” Continued to page 22  22 C o n v en t i o n o f S t a t e s A c t i o n Hand boo k makes its own rules, elects its own officers, establishes and staffs its own committees, and sets its own time of adjournment. All Founding-Era conventions were deliberative bodies. This was true to a certain extent even of conventions whose formal power was limited to an up-or-down vote. When Rhode Island lawmakers submitted the Constitution to a statewide referendum in town meetings rather than to a ratifying con- vention, a principal criticism was that the referendum lacked the deliberative qualities of the convention. Critics con- tended that a ratifying convention, unlike a referendum, provided a central forum for a full hearing and debate and exchange of information among people from different locales. They further contended that the convention offered a way to supplement the affirmative or negative vote with non-binding recom- mendations for amendments. Before and during the Founding Era, American multi-government conven- tions enjoyed even more deliberative freedom than ratifying conventions— as, indeed, befits the dignity of a diplo- matic gathering of sovereignties. No multi-government convention was lim- ited to an up-or-down vote. Each was assigned discrete problems to work on, but within that sphere each enjoyed freedom to deliberate, advise, consult, confer, recommend, and propose. Multi-government conventions also could refuse to propose. Essentially, they served as task forces where dele- gates from different states could share information, debate, compare notes, and try to hammer out creative solutions to the problems posed to them. History and the constitutional text inform us that a convention for propos- ing amendments is, like its direct pred- ecessors, a multi-government proposing convention. This suggests that an amendments convention is deliberative in much the same way its predecessors were. This suggests further that when a legislature attempts in its application to compel the convention to merely vote up-or-down on prescribed language, it is not utilizing the application power in a valid way. Prevailing convention practice during the Founding Era permitted a few pro- cedural variations, and it is precisely in these areas that the text of Article V pre- scribes procedure. Specifically: • During the Founding Era, multi-state conventions could be authorized merely to propose solutions for state approval, or, less commonly, to resolve issues; in the latter case each state “pledged its faith” to comply with the outcome. Article V clarifies that an amendments convention only may propose. At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers rejected proffered language to create an amendments convention that could resolve. • During the Founding Era, a proposing convention could be plenipotentiary or limited. Article V clarifies that nei- ther the states nor Congress may call plenipotentiary conventions under Article V, because that Article author- izes only amendments to “this Consti- tution,” and, further, it proscribes certain amendments. • During the Founding Era, an “appli- cation” for a multi-government con- vention could refer either to (1) a request from a state to Congress to call, or (2) the call itself. Article V clarifies that an application has only the former meaning. • During the Founding Era a call could come from one or more states, from Congress, or from another con- vention. Article V prescribes that the call for an amendments conven- tion comes only from Congress, but is mandatory when two thirds of the states have submitted similar applications. • During the Founding Era, one propos- ing convention (that of 1787) had attempted to specify how the states were to review its recommendations. Article V clarifies that an amend- ments convention does not have this power. Thus do text and history fit together to guide us in the use of Article V. Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention For Proposing Amendments” Continued from page 21  23 Notes  100 Congress Ave, Suite 2000 l Aus n, TX 78701 l COSAc on.com l 530-274-9900 Please accept my generous 501 c4 dona on to call a Conven on of States: m $50 m $100 m $250 m $500 m $1,000 m $2,500 Other m $________ Phone: Office: Mobile: Email: PAYMENT OPTIONS: Check Informa on Payable to: COS Ac!on Mail to: 100 Congress Ave, Suite 2000 Aus!n, TX 78701 For wiring Informa on contact: Pa!y Meckler at pmeckler@cosac on.com or 530-274-9900 Credit Card m American Express m Discover m MasterCard m Visa One-!me contribu!on of $ Or Monthly contribu!on of $ Name on Card: Exp.: / Card #: Sec Code: Billing address if different from above Signature: COS Ac on is a non-profit sec on 501©(4) organiza on . Contribu ons to COS Ac on are not tax deduc ble as charitable contribu ons. COS Ac on respects the wishes of its donors to keep their iden es confiden al. COSA HB 24 HFLC  Inside Back Cover Blank  Connect with Convention of States Action Website: COSAction.com Phone: (540) 441-7227  Having been dormant for centuries, a potent section in the U.S. Constitution is now in the minds and on the lips of a new generation of reformers who are determined to keep the nation out of an abyss. As America stares hard at the darkness ahead, the new reform- ers — supporters of The Convention of States Project — have begun to popularize this for- gotten constitutional provision that might well become Official Washington’s undoing. The problem, which hardly needs stating, is that the federal government has become the very monster the Founders anticipated. Quite likely, the beast we face is far beyond anything that could have been imagined by the found- ing generation. Even today it is hard to ade- quately comprehend the omnipresent and, thanks to the NSA, omniscient federal menace that hangs over every aspect of life in 21 st -century America. The Founders’ concern that power would be consolidated at the federal level is dealt with in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Author Mark Levin, in his blockbuster best- seller, //The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the// //American Republic// , based his ideas for reform on this less well-known means by which amendments may be proposed — a process that entirely outflanks Washington’s fixed for- tifications. Levin cogently argues that attempts at reform from within Washington are futile. Obviously, what is needed is a way to trump the Beltway ruling class from without. Enter Article V, which prescribes the amend- ment process. Article V establishes the amendment process as a two-phase affair: proposal, followed by ratification of three- fourths of the states. The states have no way to ratify that which has not first been pro- posed. From the beginning, the states have re- lied on congressional super-majorities to do the proposing. But the Founders knew that Congress would be loath to propose anything that would limit federal power, so they included a way for the states to propose amendments in an ad hoc assembly that Article V styles as “A Conven- tion for Proposing Amendments.” The idea of using the amendments conven- tion assembly has surfaced from time to time in U.S. history — most recently in the 1980 s, with the movement to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). The effort peaked with 33 states passing resolutions — just one shy of the required two-thirds of state legisla- tures, which would have compelled Congress to issue a call for the amendments convention. That’s when the effor t took a bizarre detour — into oblivion. The BBA advocates of the 1980s, including then-President Reagan, were decidedly of the political right. The last thing anyone in the movement expected was for “friendlies” from elsewhere on the right to object to the idea in near hysterics as a plot to render the Constitu- tion null and void. The unlikely opponents, while not necessarily opposed to a BBA, con- demned in no uncertain terms the use of the amendments convention to propose it. It quickly became evident, from the critics’ rhet- oric, that they had confused the Convention for Proposing Amendments assembly with a so-called plenary (full authority) Constitu- tional Convention. BBA advocates attempted to clarify the differ- ence between the types of conventions by pointing out that, as sovereigns, the states have never needed permission from the Con- stitution to call an actual Constitutional Con- vention. Indeed, the only reason to invoke Ar- ticle V would be to self-limit the convention’s authority to “proposing amendments,” as the assembly’s name indicates. The critics would have none of it. In appeals to the public, the critics insidiously The Final Constitutional Option Bob Berry, Regional Director for Convention of States Project Continued to back page The problem, which hardly needs stating, is that the federal government has become the very monster the Founders anticipated.  (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject Continued from front page left out any mention of the ratification process by three-fourths of the states — the implica- tion being that once the proceedings began, there would be nothing that could be done to hold it back when, inevitably, extreme ele- ments moved to dissolve the Constitution. When challenged on this, the foes weaved the assertion into their conspiracy theory that the out-of-control assembly would simply declare its own sovereignty and dispense with the rati- fication process altogether! As preposterous as this notion was, the ac- companying slogan was more effective: “We don’t need a new Constitution!” Gobsmacked, the BBA proponents could only look on as state legislators made for the tall grass. One by one, states began rescinding BBA resolutions. As a postscript to this sad chapter, it should be noted that by the late 1980 s, the national debt had just topped $ 2 trillion. An effective BBA at that time could have stopped the bleeding that, by any objective measure, has become an existential threat. The Professor In 2009 , an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for re- search. Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitu- tional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both. Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Pro- posing Amendments mentioned in Article V, Natelson was struck by the paucity of mod- ern-day scholarship on the topic, despite an abundance of original source material. Quietly, he set to work. Before long, Natelson had acquired nearly all of the journals of founding-era conventions. This was added to his existing collection of material from each state’s ratification conven- tion as each considered whether or not to ap- prove the proposed 1787 Constitution. A pic- ture of early American convention tradition began to emerge. Casting a wider net, he pulled in over 40 gen- erally neglected Article V court decisions, some of which had been argued before the Supreme Court. In a series of publications, Natelson churned out his findings (available at www.articlevinfocenter.com ), which sur- prised many — including himself. The research quickly became the gold stan- dard of scholarship about the process, known formally as the “State-Application- and-Convention” method of amending the Constitution. Natelson held that, far from being a self-de- struct mechanism, the Founders meant for the process to be used in parallel to the congres- sional method as yet another “check and bal- ance” within the framework of the newly con- stituted federal government. Most importantly, Natelson drew a strong dis- tinction between the assembly mentioned in Article V and the oft-mentioned Constitu- tional Convention. For this reason, he is quick to correct anyone mistakenly referring to the Convention for Proposing Amendments as a “Constitutional Convention.” Natelson’s research trove smashed the con- spiracy theories of the 1980 s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers. When the history is written, it will record that this was the mo- ment the Article V movement achieved criti- cal mass. The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past. Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched. When a battle is won, it is wise to move to the next battle, for the waiting opponent is formi- dable and lives on Capitol Hill. The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past.  The Environmental Protection Agency’s Battle Over Coal is part of a larger War on Federalism. The Environmental Protection Agency’s “War on Coal” is a war that the states liter- ally cannot afford to lose. With coal providing almost 40 percent of U.S. electricity and around a half-million American jobs , we all stand to suffer from proposed federal regulations that would force plants to close , drive our electricity bills up , and hinder the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers in the global market. But this recent bureaucratic power grab is more appropriately described as a “battle” than a “war.” It is just one fight—albeit an important one—in the larger War on Federalism being waged day after day by a formidable national government in Washington, D.C. The power play being made by the EPA in this instance is handily representative of the processes that have steadily expanded federal power over the years. Just like President Obama’s executive fiat on immi- gration policy , it involves actions that do not quite ignore constitutional boundaries, but simply lawyer around them. Here, the EPA wants to order the states to apply the same crippling carbon dioxide emission standards to existing energy plants—already regulated under a sepa- rate section of the Clean Air Act —as the federal standards designed for new plants. For decades, the EPA has been administer- ing the federal law according to a common-sense reading of the language, whereby existing sources of air pollution are regulated under one section and new or otherwise unregulated sources are gov-erned by another . Then came a failed attempt by the Obama administration to shepherd new climate change legislation through Congress. Now, however, citing a dubious ambiguity in the wording of one provision of the decades- old Clean Air Act, the EPA claims that Congress actually authorized it to apply the more stringent standards to existing plants anyway. The EPA’s attempt to steamroll what most see as a clear, congressionally-constructed boundary on its regulatory authority is made possible by a landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1984, Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council . That case gave us the “Chevron Test” for evaluating the extent of agency authority by reviewing Congress’ statutory instructions to the agency. Essentially, if Congress’ direction to the agency is clear, it simply must be followed. If, however, there is silence or ambiguity in the language, then courts will uphold the agency’s action as long as it is based on a permissible interpretation of the law. In other words, an interpretive “tie” goes to the bureaucrats. The Battle Over Coal and the War on States’ Rights Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject This policy puts power tools in the hands of bureaucrats who are already predis- posed to chip away at the limitations of their authority. It invites every administra- tive agency to expand its power at every turn by inventing creative statutory inter- pretations that can pass the low bar of a“permissible” designation by some fed- eral judge. As it turns out, federal bureaucrats are cre- ative geniuses when it comes to “interpreting” their statutory authority. Their creativity mirrors that of the execu- tive, legislative, and judicial branches in interpreting the Constitution itself. Invariably, all this interpretive creativity comes at the expense of states’ rights. In fact, this very Battle over Coal is an exam- ple of how much the states have already lost, for this battle is a tug-of-war between federal agencies and the federal legislature over an area of policy that rightfully belongs to the states. Strategies for winning this Battle over Coal in the short-term—including the usual expensive lawsuits—must not be mistaken for the needed long-term solution to the epidemic erosion of our constitutional fed- eral system. We cannot allow our national government to continue distracting us with countless and repeated skirmishes over the practical and procedural terms of their abuses of power. Instead, we must engage in the larger war over fundamental constitutional principles that the feds are actually waging. The states are well-equipped to win this War on Federalism decisively, but victory requires them to use the one effectual con- stitutional tool at their disposal that, until now, they have entirely neglected. By invoking Article V’s state-controlled process to propose constitutional amend- ments, the states can foreclose the feds’ opportunity to lawyer around limitations on their authority. The states can defini- tively end not only the EPA’s attempt to hijack legislative prerogatives, but also hun- dreds of other instances of overreaching by bureaucrats, the president, Congress, and even the Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment could over- rule the Chevron case’s “tie goes to the agency” framework and replace it with a rule that, where Congress’ intent is unclear, the agency may not act. But more importantly, a constitutional amendment could limit the power of Con- gress to interfere with policies that the Constitution reserved to the states. For example, an amendment could overturn the current, overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was origi- nally intended to merely allow Congress to regulate interstate shipping. What is ultimately at stake here is our self- governance. Will the vast majority of our laws be created in the state and local gov- ernments that are most responsive to the people, as intended by the Constitution? Or will we instead allow ourselves to be ruled by an elite ruling class in a distant capitol, which hands down high-minded orders and cracks the whip on the backs of the states to carry them out? Federalism is a defining characteristic of our exceptional Constitution, and it is under siege. But the War on Federalism is one that the states can win if they use the appropriate constitutional defense. //Originally published on // //TheBlaze.com// This Battle over Coal is an example of how much the states have already lost, for this battle is a tug-of-war between federal agencies and the federal legislature over an area of policy that rightfully belongs to the states.  Newsflash: Our beloved Constitution has been on the operating table, under the knife of an activist Supreme Court, for decades. Far and away, fear is the most common rationale among opponents of Article V ’s convention process for proposing consti- tutional amendments. Fear of the uncertain result, fear of a Congressional take-over, fear of George Soros and what his money might buy. But even as naysayers sit in their meeting rooms and chatrooms opining about hypothetical rogue delegates to a hypo- thetical convention, Congress continues to spend money that our great- grandchildren will one day owe . Our president continues to use creative legal arguments to erase the lines that once separated constitutional powers, thrusting himself into the business of lawmaking. Unelected bureaucrats continue to churn out mountains of regulations that are unauthorized by Congress—and in some cases put hardworking Americans out of work. And the Supreme Court is one vote away from a revocation-through-interpretation of our right to bear arms. Rather than checking and balancing one another as they were designed and empowered to do, the three branches of the federal government are acting in con- cert to further concentrate their power at the expense of state prerogatives and indi- vidual liberty. All three branches are, effectively, making laws. Congress, the intended lawmaking branch, has extended its lawmaking into matters reserved to the states. And our unaccountable Supreme Court finds inventive ways to interpret the Constitu- tion so as to justify this—not because it can’t determine the Constitution’s original meaning, but because the original meaning doesn’t matter if our Constitution is, as we are told, a “living, breathing document.” Meanwhile, administrative agencies—the bold and unmanageable fourth branch of government—have broken the will of the American people by the sheer volume of their regulations, rules and reports. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 376- page “Regulatory Impact Analysis” for its War on Coal begins with a five-page list of acronyms to be learned by the aspiring reader—a virtual electric fence to all but the most intrepid citizen. How can we be a self-governing people when we are completely removed from the invisible hands that actually regulate us, with no means of holding them account- a b l e , a n d n o h o p e o f k n o w i n g o r understanding the laws they are making? Many who oppose using Article V’s convention process would agree that well- designed constitutional amendments The Article V Solution and the Absurdity of Inaction Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject could close court-created structural loop- holes that have damaged our federal structure and concentrated power in Washington, D.C. For instance, we could require congressional approval for all administrative regulations. We could clarify where Congress’ authority ends and the states’ authority begins so that Congress could actually have time to do its constitutional job. Yet some insist that an amendment- proposing convention amounts to open-heart surgery for our Constitution, and that nothing could ever justify such an action. Newsflash: Our beloved Constitution has been on the operating table, under the knife of an activist Supreme Court, for decades. An admittedly imperfect but well-prepared team of doctors is standing by, eager to stop the bleeding and close up the wound. But a fearful crowd of skeptics is blocking the way. They love this patient and are not entirely convinced that the doctors’ training is sufficient. Do they have the proper supplies? What if armed gunmen enter the surgical ward and interrupt the lifesaving process? “No,” the skeptics conclude. “We can’t be assured of a good outcome, so we had bet- ter just stand by.” And the patient’s life ebbs away. We could learn a lot from Dietrich Bonho- effer , the German pastor who resolved to actively resist Adolf Hitler, at any cost. Bon- hoeffer had a painful understanding that it is our actions—not our sentiments—that reveal our truest convictions, and that our desire for safety can be an obstacle to the action that our professed morality requires. In 1934, he explained : “There is no way to peace along the way of safety. For peace must be dared, it is itself the great venture and can never be safe. Peace is the oppo- site of security.” It was also Bonhoeffer who said, “Not to act is to act.” The Founding Fathers gave us a tool in Article V to restrain federal power through state-proposed constitutional amendments. I do not doubt that the conservatives trying to block the use of \\ this tool have sincere reverence for our found-ing document. But mere sentiments cannot rescue our Constitution from continued disfiguration under the federal scalpel, nor close the wounds that are standing open even as we continue this debate. Originally published on TheBlaze.com It is our actions — not our sentiments — that reveal our truest convictions.  Article V’s convention process is part of the beautiful constitutional machinery built to protect the states and the people from an overreaching federal government. The constitutional boundaries separating the three federal branches and setting outer limits on their power are barely visible anymore. Many Americans are turn- ing toward Article V of the Constitution to restore those boundaries. Constitutional amendment is strong medicine, to be sure, but it is the medicine that our Founders prescribed for the disease of federal overreach that is otherwise terminal to our Republic. Here are five myths about the Article V antidote and its side effects. 1. An Article V convention is a “Consti- tutional Convention” or “Con-Con.” This point can get confusing, because Article V is a provision of the Constitution, so a convention held pursuant to its terms could be described as “constitutional” in that sense. But what most people mean when they describe an Article V conven- tion as a “Con-Con” is that it is the same type of gathering as the one in 1787 that produced our Constitution. And that impli- cation is clearly wrong. The distinction between the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and a convention held pursuant to Article V lies in the source of authority for each. The states gathered in 1787 pursuant to their residual powers as individual sovereigns— not pursuant to any provision of the Articles of Confedera- tion for proposing amendments. An Article V convention, on the other hand, derives its authority from the terms of Article V itself and is therefore limited to proposing amendments to the Constitu- tion we already have, pursuant to the prescribed procedures. 2. We have no idea how an Article V convention would operate. Article V itself is silent as to the procedural details of a convention, leading some to speculate that we are left clueless as to how the meeting would function. But while it’s true that there has never been an Article V 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 (that’s why it’s a convention of states—not a convention of delegates). The more detailed, parliamentary rules of the convention are decided by the dele- gates at the convention itself. 3. The topic of an Article V convention cannot be limited, so convention delegates could re-write the entire Constitution once they assemble. If states weren’t free to define the scope of an Article V convention, then America would have already witnessed many of them. Over the course of our nation’s Five Myths About An Article V Convention Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject history, states have filed over 400 applica- tions for Article V conventions. The reason we haven’t had one yet is because there have never been 34 applications request- ing a convention on the same topic. Moreover, this proposition makes no sense from a historical, practical or legal perspec- tive. In every interstate convention ever held, there was always a specified topic or agenda for the meeting. Practically speak- ing, some limitation on the topic is necessary in order for the state legislatures to provide instructions to the delegates they send as their agents (states always instruct their delegates). 4. Congress would control an Article V convention. Anyone who has read James Madison’s record of the Philadelphia Convention pro- ceedings knows that the very reason the drafters added the convention method of proposing amendments to Article V was to give the states a way to bypass Congress— which has its own, express power to unilaterally propose amendments. They would never have given Congress control over both methods. Congress only has two powers related to the convention: to issue the formal call, setting the date and location of the con- vention once 34 similar applications are received, and to choose between two methods of state ratification for any pro- posals offered by the convention. That’s it. In fact, at least one federal court has defin- itively ruled that Congress cannot use any of its Article I powers—including its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause— to affect Article V procedures. 5. The Article V convention process has no safeguards to protect our Constitution from rogue delegates or big-money special interest groups. To the contrary, the process is so well-safe- guarded that it has proven incredibly difficult to invoke! There are numerous, redundant safeguards on the process. First, the topic specified in the 34 applica- tions that trigger the convention act as an initial limitation on it. These applications are the very source of authority for the convention, so any proposals beyond their scope would be out of order. Second, state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their authority or instructions. Convention delegates are the agents of their state legislature and are subject to its instructions. As a matter of basic agency law , any actions taken outside the scope of a delegate’s authority would be void. But the final and most effective protection of the process is the simple fact that it takes 38 states to ratify any amendment proposed by the convention. This means that it would only take 13 states to block any ill-conceived or illegitimately advo- cated proposal. Article V’s convention process is part of the beautiful constitutional machinery built to protect the states and the people from an overreaching federal government. It is time for us to use it. Originally published on TheBlaze.com The process is so well-safeguarded that it has proven incredibly difficult to invoke.  “There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.” — Alexander Hamilton A common misconception about an Article V convention is that it is identical to a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, today some people believe this, due to false informa- tion propagated by groups opposed to the states exercising their constitutional authority. A cur- sory review of the writings of the Framers during the creation and ratification of the Constitution clearly demonstrates, however, that an Article V convention is not the same as a Constitutional Convention (or a “Con-Con,” as opponents like to call it). Here is what history tells us. The Framers Rejected a Proposal to Give Article V Conventions More Power On September 15, 1787, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention unanimously ap- proved adding the convention mode to Article V in order to give the states authority to propose constitutional amendments without the consent of Congress. Immediately after that vote, a mo- tion was made by Roger Sherman to remove the three-fourths requirement for ratification of amendments. This would have given future con- ventions even more authority by allowing them to determine how many states would be re- quired to ratify their proposals. James Madison described the motion: “Mr. Sherman moved to strike out of art. V. after “legis- latures” the words “of three fourths” and so after the word “Conventions” leaving future Conventions to act in this matter, like the present Conventions according to circumstances.” This motion was re- jected by the Framers, clearly indicating their in- tent to limit the power of future Article V conventions within carefully delineated constitu- tional boundaries. James Madison himself makes it clear that a Constitutional Convention and an Article V con- vention are separate and distinct entities. According to Madison: “A Convention cannot be called without the unanimous consent of the parties who are to be bound by it, if first principles are to be recurred to; or without the previous application of 2 ⁄ 3 of the State legislatures, if the forms of the Constitution are to be pursued.” Notice how he described that a Constitutional Convention (first principles) requires unanimous consent to be called by the parties that are to be bound to it, whereas an Article V convention (forms of the Constitution) only requires appli- cation by 2 ⁄ 3 of the states. This high bar of unanimous consent “of the par- ties who are to be bound to it” is required for a convention to propose a new Constitution, but not for an amendment-proposing convention, which only requires 2 ⁄ 3 of the states to call. Also, a state is only bound by a new Constitution if it ratifies it; this is not the case for an individual amendment. Once three-fourths (38) of the states ratify an amendment, all 50 states are bound by it. A New Constitution Must Be Ratified As a Whole Document, Whereas Amendments Are Ratified Individually Another major difference between a Constitu- tional Convention and an Article V convention for proposing amendments is the passage and ratification process. A new Constitution must be passed and ratified as a complete document, whereas amendments are passed and ratified individually. Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist 85: “Every Constitution for the United States must An Article V Convention Is Not a Constitutional Convention By Ken Quinn, Regional Director Convention of States Action Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject ACTION CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ARTICLE V CONVENTION Propose Propose New Constitution Propose Amendments to Current Constitution Power Full Powers, Unlimited Limited to Subject of State Applications Authority Outside of the Constitution Under Article V of the Constitution Requirement to Call Unanimous Consent of States to be Bound Application by Two-thirds of the States Called By The States Congress Scope of Passage at Convention Entire Constitution as a Whole Document Individual Amendments, Singly Votes for Passage at Convention Unanimous Consent Required Simple Majority Scope of Ratification by the States Entire Constitution as a Whole Document Individual Amendments, Singly Votes for Ratification by the States Only Binds States That Ratify It Ratified by Three-fourths and Binds All States DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars…. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplica- tion of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the col- lective assent to a final act…. “But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly…. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine ( 2 ⁄ 3 ), or rather ten States ( 3 ⁄ 4 ), were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amend- ment must infallibly prevail. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.” Text of Article V Unequivocally States “Convention for Proposing Amendments” Article V could not be any clearer in regards to the powers a convention is given. Here is the rel- evant portion of text: “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 pro- posing Amendments….” It is absolutely disingen- uous to claim that an Article V convention can propose an entirely new Constitution. The words “for proposing amendments” could not be any clearer. Article V gives a convention the exact same authority as Congress: the power to propose amendments — nothing more, nothing less. Text of Article V Does Not Allow For a New Constitution to Be Drafted Last but not least is the fact that Article V does not allow for a new Constitution to be drafted, because the text states: “Congress … 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….” When ratified, the amend- ments proposed by a convention become part of our current Constitution. A convention can- not, under the plain text of Article V, set up a new constitution. “Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U. S. the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn. according to a process applicable by the States.” — James Madison, Letter to Edward Everett, August 28, 1830  When our government’s “interpretations” of the Constitution don’t seem to square with what we read in black and white, it is usually because they don’t square with the Constitution. There is only one way to deal with squatters. As a law school student, I remember being outraged when I learned that if a landowner does not begin the legal evic- tion process within a prescribed period of time, a brazen trespasser can actually acquire title to real estate. It’s called “ adverse possession ,” and it’s happening today in a context that is less tangible but far more alarming. Today in Washington, D.C., we have a Congress, President, Supreme Court, and a slew of administrative agencies acting as constitu- tional squatters. They are brazen trespassers, having taken up residence in jurisdictions that belong to the states—openly claiming power to mandate state recognition of marriages that defy the states’ constitutions, to regu- late businesses out of existence, to dictate farming and conservation practices, and to bully state and local education depart- ments into accepting federal programs. They have even injected themselves into our personal business, mandating that we buy certain health insurance policies, for instance. The American people have grown so accustomed to seeing the feds occupy this territory that many no longer bother to consult their pocket Constitutions in an effort to identify any source of authority for these actions. The Supreme Court deci- sions upholding them are so lengthy and contrived that most Americans have given up on understanding them, concluding It’s Time to Evict the Constitutional Squatters Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project that the Constitution must be too complex for ordinary people to comprehend. While a simple reading of Articles I and II appears to indicate that neither Congress nor the President has any legitimate power over education, health insurance, or the environment, we are “jargoned” and “precedented” into submission by dense, complex judicial pronouncements inter- preting federal laws like the Affordable Care Act , which rival the works of Tolstoy in length and might as well have been writ- ten in his native tongue. Regular, hard-working people raising fami- lies probably have no clue how the Anti-Injunction Act figures into their health insurance situation, but they know the upshot is that they must buy the insurance the feds want them to have, or be pun- ished. “Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die…” As a young lawyer fresh out of school, I often failed to question the judgments of Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/Convent ion OfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject more seasoned attorneys, always assuming they knew something I didn’t. I’m sure that was true enough, plenty of the time. But as time went on, I came to understand that often what seemed like a bad judgment call to me really was a bad judgment call. And it was my duty to point it out in the proper tone and forum. Here’s what I’m getting at: The average American isn’t so ignorant, nor the aver- age judge, congressman, president, or bureaucrat so brilliant, as we might think. The Constitution is for us, and it is not so complex that we should despair of under- standing it. When our government’s “interpretations” of the Constitution don’t seem to square with what we read in black and white, it is usually because they don’t square with the Constitution, and our President, Congress, courts, and countless busy bureaucrats are really acting without proper constitu- tional authority. The feds have rudely pitched their tent on the front lawn of our liberty, and it’s time we served them their eviction notice. Just as landowners have the right and duty to invoke a legal process (eviction) to deal with squatters in property cases, the Amer- ican people have the right and duty to invoke a particular constitutional process to restore the balance of power among the national government, the states, and the people. It’s found in Article V of the Con- stitution, and it’s called a Convention of States for proposing amendments. But here’s the rub: Just as legal property owners lose their title if they fail to act, so we will lose the protection of original con- stitutional boundaries if we fail to enforce them through Article V. You don’t have to take my word for it. In a law review article published last year, Boston College Law School Assistant Pro- fessor Richard Albert explained: “There are several other more flexible modes of constitutional change that do not rely on the mechanistic procedures of Article V in order to keep the constitu- tional regime current and reflective of the new social and political equilibria. They result in unwritten changes to the Consti- tution that may be as constraining as a formal amendment. That the United States Constitution is both written and unwritten is therefore now uncontroversial.” What Albert describes as the “unwritten” Constitution, achieved by “more flexible modes of constitutional change,” is just like the “unwritten” legal title that squatters achieve when the rightful owner fails to defend his property. Ultimately, it comes to have the same force and effect as a writ- ten deed to the family farm. Every student of American history knows that legitimate government depends upon the consent of the governed. The legal title to government is vested in us, and with it the right and duty to defend our title against trespassers. I urge you to join with the Convention of States Project to evict the constitutional squatters. Originally published on TheBlaze.com We will lose the protection of original constitutional boundaries if we fail to enforce them through Article V.  It’s the elephant in the room. The Tenth Amendment boldly declares: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” But if the daily news is any indication, there is no subject exempt from federal power. Through its power of the purse, which is virtually unlimited under the modern interpretation, Congress can impact, influence, or coerce behavior in nearly every aspect of life. The question, then, that holds the key to unlocking our constitutional quandary, is this: How do states protect their reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment? On a piecemeal basis, states can cer- tainly challenge federal actions through lawsuits, arguing that the federal govern- ment lacks constitutional authority to act in a particular area. But what if the court, as it is wont to do, “interprets” the Constitution as providing the disputed authority? What then? In their frustration and disbelief over the growing extent of federal abuses of power (and the refusal of our Supreme Court to correct them), some conserva- tives argue that states should engage in “nullification,” whereby the states simply refuse to comply with federal laws they deem unconstitutional. While there are some, less dramatic forms of nullification that are perfectly appropriate and constitutional—such as states refusing to accept federal funds that come attached to federal require- ments—this state-by-state, ad hoc review of federal law is fraught with legal and practical pitfalls. First of all, which state officer, institution, or individual decides whether a federal action is authorized under the Constitu- tion? Is it the state supreme court, the legislature, the attorney general—or can any individual make the determination? After all, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to individuals as well as to states. Secondly, how can a state enforce its nullification of a federal law? For instance, if a state decides that the Affordable Care Act’s individual man- date is unconstitutional, how can it protect its citizens against the “tax” that will be levied against them if they fail to comply? It’s difficult to envision an effec- tive nullification enforcement method The Article V Solution — The Way to Implement the Tenth Amendment Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project Continued to back page Article V is the ultimate nullification procedure.  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject that doesn’t end, at some point, with armed conflict. But for true conservatives whose goal is to conserve the original design of our federal system, the far more fundamental problem with this type of in-your-face nullification is the fact that it was not the Founders’ plan. Article VI tells us that the Constitution, and federal laws passed pursuant to it, is the “supreme law of the land.” Under Article III, the United States Supreme Court is considered to be the final inter- preter of the Constitution. While some claim that this was not the Founders’ intention, historical records such as Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 78 demonstrate it was, in fact, the judiciary that they intended to assess the constitu- tionality of legislative acts. And then we have the Tenth Amend- ment itself. It establishes a principle, but it does not establish a remedy or process for protecting the reserved powers from federal intrusion. That missing process is found in Article V. Faced with a federal government acting beyond the scope of its legitimate powers—and a Supreme Court that adopts erroneous interpretations of the Constitution to justify the federal over- reach—the states’ constitutional remedy is to amend the Constitution to clarify the meaning of the clauses that have been perverted. In this way, the states can assert their authority to close the loopholes the Supreme Court has opened. You don’t have to take my word for it. In an 1830 letter to Edward Everett, James Madison wrote: “Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U.S. the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn. according to a process applicable by the States.” In other words, Article V is the ultimate nullification procedure. For states that have the will to stand up and assert their Tenth Amendment rights, they can do so by applying for an Article V convention to propose amendments that restrain federal power. Originally published on TheBlaze.com The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Is your state a “donor state?” Donor states are those in which taxpayers con- sistently pay significantly more to the federal government in tax payments than their state receives in federal spend- ing. California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Min- nesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio are consistently among the biggest losers when it comes to the federal budgeting process. All of these states each lost over $ 10 billion (some of them several times that) to other states in 2014 alone. Even tiny Delaware sent $ 13 billion to other states, courtesy of the federal government. Here in my home state of Illinois, our budget situation is so precarious that our comptroller made national news by suspending payments to lottery winners. If we could keep even half of the $ 78 bil- lion we lost in 2014 here in Illinois, we could immediately close our budget gap and begin catching up on our under- funded pension obligations…without having to raise anyone’s taxes. How is this money collected, and where does it go? The money that goes to Washington gets there through a variety of taxes, some obvious and some less so. Personal income tax is one of the pri- mary vehicles for the transfer of money from the states to Washington. Estate and inheritance taxes, gift taxes, and taxes paid by employers, such as the FICA match, are also part of the formula. Money returns to the states through a wide array of federal programs and expenditures such as highway funding, social safety net programs, military spending … and pork. Here are just a few of the more egre- gious examples of federal waste, fraud, and abuse: • $ 150,000 to study the hookah smoking habits of Jordanian students • $ 121 million on lavish conferences for Department of Justice employees • $ 1 billion on energy credits for people who don’t own any real estate • $ 2 4 million on routers powerful enough to serve thousands of users How Can the Convention of States Project Help Address My State’s Budget Challenges? Vickie Deppe, Illinois Legislative Liaison, Convention of States Project Continued to back page Expenditures are easily hidden in the federal budget because it is so large and complicated.  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject for buildings in rural West Virginia with fewer than 10 computers • $ 104 million on a “Harbor to Nowhere” and “Airport to Nowhere” to go with Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” • $ 2 million to fund a single intern for the Department of Agriculture • $ 862,000 a year to warehouse unused furniture for the IRS • $ 16 million a year on food stamps for dead people These expenditures are easily hidden in the federal budget because it is so large and complicated. Together with the annotations, the federal budget is the size of a telephone directory for a large city. Unless they sit on an appropriations committee, members of Congress can only cast an up or down vote on a budget or spending bill in its entirety. Most of them can’t possibly read it all, and even if they did, they have no power to strike a single line item. And they cer- tainly aren’t going to bring the entire federal government to a halt over a little pork…especially if their state benefits. But as Sen. Everett Dirksen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money!” Do you think you could manage this money better? So do the staff, volun- teers, and supporters of the Convention of States Project. We believe that the best decisions are made as close to home as possible, with local input and oversight. The challenges facing cities like Chicago and New York are far different from those in Antelope, South Dakota. The needs of an individual com- munity, big or small, shouldn’t be drowned out in a one-size-fits-all “solu- tion” crafted largely by people who have never even set foot in that neighbor- hood…or one in which waste, fraud, and abuse is an inherent part of the system. At an Article V Convention to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and establish spending con- trols and term limits upon its officials, the states have the power to propose a con- stitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government from spending money on projects and expenditures that the Constitution originally reserved for state and local control. They can also eliminate unfunded federal mandates. And if you’re a legislator in a donor state, that’s very good news. The needs of an individual community, big or small, shouldn’t be drowned out in a one-size-fits-all “solution.”  It’s time to dust off the tool the Founders gave us in Article V. Perhaps the most unifying conservative trait is the conviction that our Founding Fathers designed an ingenious federal sys- tem that we ought to conserve. But as federalism lies dying and our society spi- rals toward socialism, there is dissension among conservatives about using the pro- cedure the Founders left to the states to conserve it. Because Article V ’s amendment-propos- ing convention process has never been used, some have branded it a mystical a n d d a n g e r o u s p o w e r — a t h i n g shrouded in mystery, riddled with unan- swerable questions, and therefore best left alone. Some have literally labeled it a “ Pandora’s Box ,” the opening of which would unleash all manner of evil upon our beleaguered nation. Article V opponents accuse proponents of being reckless with the Constitution. They say we have no idea how a convention would work, who would choose the dele- gates, how votes would be apportioned, or whether the topic of amendments could be limited. My task today is to remove the shroud of mysticism by revealing what we do know about an Article V convention from its text, context, historical precedent, and simple logic. For starters, we know that the Founders’ whole purpose for including the conven- tion mechanism was to provide a way for the states to bypass Congress in achieving needed constitutional amendments. An early draft of Article V vested Congress with the sole power to propose constitu- tional amendments. Under that version, two-thirds of the states could petition Congress to propose amendments, but it was still Congress that did the proposing. On Sept. 15, 1787 , George Mason strenu- ously objected to this, pointing out that such a system provided no recourse for the states if the national government should become tyrannical, as he predicted it would do. The result was the unanimous adoption of Article V in its current form, providing two ways for constitutional amendments to be proposed: Congress can propose them, or the states can propose amendments at a convention called by Congress upon application from two-thirds, or 34 , of the states. Regardless of which body proposes the amendments, proposals must be rati- The Article V Solution — Demystifying a Dusty Tool Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project Continued to back page  (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject Continued from front page fied by three-fourths, or 38 , of the states in order to become effective. We also know from history that voting at an Article V convention would be done on a one-state, one-vote basis. This is the universal precedent set by the 32 inter- state conventions that occurred prior to the Constitution’s drafting. It explains why it was unnecessary for Article V to specify the number of delegates to be sent by each state; the states can send as many delegates as they like, but each state only gets one vote. We know that state legislatures choose and instruct their convention delegates, who act as agents of the state legislatures. Again, this is a matter of universal histori- cal precedent for interstate conventions. On Nov. 14, 1788 , the Virginia General Assembly filed the very first application for an Article V Convention to propose a Bill of Rights, aptly branding the convention “a convention of the States” to be composed of “deputies from the several States.” Because Congress ultimately used its own Article V power to propose a Bill of Rights, that meeting was rendered unnecessary. But the application demonstrates the con- temporaneous understanding that the convention process was state-led. The Supreme Court has likewise referred to the process as a “convention of states.” Finally, we know that the topic specified in the convention applications does matter. Over 400 applications for an Article V convention have been filed since the draft- ing of the Constitution. The reason we have never had one is because there have never been 34 applications seeking a con- vention for the same purpose. The state applications contain the agenda for an Article V convention, and until 34 states agree upon a convention agenda, there will be no convention. Because the authority for an Article V con- vention is derived from the 34 state applications that trigger it, the topic for amendments specified in those applica- tions is a binding limitation on the scope of the convention. The “unanswerable” questions about Arti- cle V do have answers. The unshrouded Article V convention isn’t a Pandora’s Box at all, because there is no such thing as magic in a box for us to fear—there is only history, law, and reason to guide faithful Americans in tending their government. And precisely because there is no such thing as magic, we’re going to need an effective tool to do the hard work of restoring our Republic. It’s time to dust off the tool the Founders gave us in Article V and get started. Originally published on TheBlaze.com The “unanswerable” questions about Article V do have answers.  American taxpayers have lost multiple billions of dollars on companies owned by big political donors who received federal funding and then went bankrupt. Most Americans are legitimately suspi- cious of lobbyists and big-money politi- cal donors…so much so, that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision sparked its own Article V movement. But an Article V Convention to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and establish spending con- trols and term limits upon its officials gives the states the power to propose amendments that can address this prob- lem in a variety of ways. Big-money donors are not usually ideo- logically motivated, but they do expect favorable treatment for themselves or their business interests once their candi- date is sworn in as a legislator. We believe taking away the favors politicians have to dispense will dry up this money and restore the level playing field Americans hold dear, far more effectively than con- tinued attempts at a regulatory solu- tion…for which someone always finds a workaround, anyway. One of the most common means for politicians to reward their supporters is through regulatory exemptions. An amendment that prohibits members of Congress from exempting themselves and their friends from the laws they make for the rest of us not only enjoys the unanimous support of voters we’ve surveyed, but also removes a powerful incentive for business owners to attempt to “buy” candidates. A com- panion amendment removing de facto lawmaking authority from unelected bureaucrats will help prevent members of Congress from hiding these activities from voters. Such amendments will also help locally-owned businesses compete more effectively with large corporations who can afford lobbyists and attorneys to keep them in compli- ance with ever-more burdensome and complex federal regulations. Ameri- cans agree that a business should suc- ceed because it offers a superior prod- uct or service to its customers…not because it has friends in Washington. Another vehicle for cronyism rests in the power of politicians to use taxpayer money to invest in and award grants, loans, and loan guarantees to for-profit businesses. Why should the politically- How Can the Convention of States Project Help Curb the Corrupting Influence of Money in Politics? Vickie Deppe, Illinois Legislative Liaison, Convention of States Project Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject connected get to shake down the Ameri- can taxpayer when they couldn’t con- vince local banks and investors to fund their projects? American taxpayers have lost multiple billions of dollars on compa- nies owned by big political donors who received federal funding and then went bankrupt. Moreover, when the federal government invests in businesses, even as it regulates them and the financial mar- kets in which they function, it acts as both referee and player. This creates an addi- tional dimension of conflict-of-interest that everyday Americans find unaccept- able. The only way this practice will be stopped is for the states to propose and ratify an amendment prohibiting it; there is too much power and money involved to expect Congress to reform itself. Finally, term limits can serve to disrupt the ability of lobbyists and big donors to groom and maintain politicians. Term limits are wildly popular among voters, but many legislators have serious and legitimate reservations. There are two reasons that legislators opposed to term limits can feel good about supporting our initiative: The state legislatures, not the Conven- tion of States Project or voters directly, are in the driver’s seat at the conven- tion. Our application provides the op- portunity for term limits to be dis- cussed, but in no way guarantees that they will be included on the agenda, much less adopted or ratified. Those who oppose term limits will have the opportunity to argue forcefully against them, and states may instruct their del- egation to vote “no” if such a measure comes to a floor vote. Momentum for term limits is largely driven by dissatisfaction with legislators over the issues and abuses discussed above. When common sense reforms are adopted to curb these abuses, the pressure for term limits will likely sub- side. It may seem counterintuitive, but our application offers the best avenue to avoid term limits because it has the potential to remedy the root causes behind the push for them. Absent such measures, term limits will continue to gain popular support. U.S. Term Limits, a group dedicated to enacting term limits on legislators, makes gains every election cycle, and has recently announced a new Article V effort to complement its legislator pledge initiative. Otto von Bismarck once compared laws to sausage. He said it’s probably best if people don’t watch them being made. Here at the Convention of States Project, we’re working to put the kitchen in plain view of the diners. Americans agree that a business should succeed because it offers a superior product or service to its customers… not because it has friends in Washington.  The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated. We See Four Major Abuses Perpetrated by the Federal Government. These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government does not shatter men’s wills but “softens, bends, and guides” them. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming nothing more than “a flock of timid and in- dustrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America , 1840 ) 1. The Spending and Debt Crisis The $ 17 trillion national debt is staggering, but it only tells part of the story. Under stan- dard accounting practices, the federal gov- ernment owes around $ 100 trillion more in vested Social Security benefits and other pro- grams. This is why the government cannot tax its way out of debt. Even if it confiscated everything, it would not cover the debt. 2. The Regulatory Crisis The federal bureaucracy has placed a regula- tory burden upon businesses that is com- plex, conflicted, and crushing. Little account- ability exists when agencies—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law. Research from the American Enterprise Institute shows that, since 1949 , federal regu- lations have lowered the real GDP growth by 2 % and made America 72 % poorer. 3. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty For years, Congress has been using federal grants to keep the states under its control. Combining these grants with federal mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than re- specting them as truly independent repub- lican governments. A radical social agenda and an invasion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While significant efforts have been made to combat this social erosion, these trends defy some of the most impor- tant principles. 4. Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process The Founders believed that the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. Not only were there to be checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, but power was to be shared between the states and federal government, with the latter only exercising those powers specifically granted in the Constitution. Collusion among decision-makers in Wash- ington, D.C., has replaced these checks and balances. The federal judiciary supports Con- gress and the White House in their ever- escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states. We need to realize that the structure of deci- sion-making matters. Who decides what the law shall be is as important as what is de- cided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated. Washington, D.C., does not believe in this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken prac- tice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed a challenge to fed- eral spending power, despite acknowledging that power had grown far beyond the bounds envisioned by the Founders. What Does this Mean? This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish mean- A Solution As Big As The Problem Michael P. Farris, JD, LLM, Convention of States Action — Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | COSA CTION . COM | Fa ce book. co m/COSA ct ion | Twitter.com/COSAction ingful power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: Unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will con- tinue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and de- stroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchil- dren to the debts of the past. The problem is big, but we have a solution. Article V gives us a tool to fix the mess in D.C. Our Solution Is Big Enough to Solve the Problem Rather than calling a convention for a spe- cific amendment, Convention of States Action (COSA) urges state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amend- ment (e.g., a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requir- ing a balanced budget is a great idea that COSA fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates. A Convention of States needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government. What Sorts of Amendments Could Be Passed? The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a conven- tion of states: • A Balanced Budget Amendment • A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was that the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states) • A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (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) • A prohibition on using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States • A limitation on using executive orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws) • Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court • Placing an upper limit on federal taxation • Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The Convention of States itself would deter- mine which ideas deserve serious considera- tion, and it would take a majority of votes from the states to formally pro- pose any amendments. The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state govern- ments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution. The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.  A few days ago I heard a presentation by a spokesman for a group that claims to defend the Constitution and revere the Founders. Yet the spokesman trashed the Constitution’s Framers for allegedly exceeding their authority and claimed they added a provision that largely ren- dered another provision useless. In other words, the spokesman charged the Framers with being both ( 1 ) dishonorable and ( 2 ) incompetent. The Framers inserted the “Convention for propos- ing Amendments” in the Constitution to provide the states with a way of obtaining constitutional amendments without federal interference. Tench Coxe , a leading advocate for the Constitution during the ratification debates, pointed out that the convention device allows the states to obtain whatever amendments they choose, “ although the President, Senate and Federal House of Rep- resentatives should be unanimously opposed to each and all of them. ” The spokesman, however, asserted that the Constitution allowed Congress, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, to dictate, either in the convention call or by previous legislation, how an amendments convention is structured and how commissioners (delegates) are selected and apportioned. The claim that Congress can use the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure the convention was first advanced in the 1960 s, and has been repeated numerous times since then. A Congres- sional Research Service report published earlier this year noted that some in Congress have taken the same line, although the report did not actually endorse it. But pause to consider: Why would the Framers place in the Constitution a method by which Congress could largely control a convention created to bypass Congress? Were the Framers that stupid? Of course not. Most of them were highly experi- enced and extremely deft legal drafters. Behind the belief that the Necessary and Proper Clause empowers Congress to structure the convention are three distinct assumptions—all erroneous. They are ( 1 ) that the scope of Con- gress’s authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause is broader than it is, ( 2 ) that the Clause covers the amendment process, and ( 3 ) that ordinary legislation may govern the amend- ment process. The Necessary and Proper Clause is the last item in the Article I, Section 8 list of congressional powers. It reads: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for car- rying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Depart- ment or Officer thereof.” It happens that the most extensive treatment of the Necessary and Proper Clause is an academic book I co-authored with Professors Gary Lawson, Guy Seidman, and Geoff Miller: //The Origins of// // // //the Necessary and Proper Clause// // // (Cambridge University Press, 2010 ) (cited by Justice Thomas in a Supreme Court case in 2014 and apparently relied on by Chief Justice Roberts in 2012 ). This book reveals the Necessary and Proper Clause to be a masterpiece of legal draftsmanship. The Clause was based on usage common in 18 th - The Necessary and Proper Clause Does NOT Empower Congress to Control an Amendments Convention Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center Continued to back page The Framers inserted the “Convention for proposing Amendments” in the Constitution to provide the states with a way of obtaining constitutional amendments without federal interference.  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/Conven tionOfState s | Twitter.com/COSproject century legal documents. It is not a grant of au- thority, but a rule of interpretation. It tells us to construe certain enumerated powers as the rati- fiers understood them, rather than in an overly- narrow way. In legal terms, the Necessary and Proper Clause informs us that those enumerated powers include “incidental” authority. Even if the Clause did apply to the amendment process, the authority “incidental” to Congress’s call would be quite narrow. An entity that calls an interstate convention always has been limited to specifying the time, place, and subject matter. It is the state legislatures that control selection of their own commissioners. But, in fact, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not extend to the amendment process. To explain: The Constitution includes numerous grants of power. These grants are made to Congress, to the President, to the courts, to the Electoral Col- lege, and to state legislatures, state governors, and various conventions. An entity exercising a power under one of those grants is said to exer- cise a “federal function.” The Necessary and Proper Clause is crafted to apply to most federal functions, but it also ex- cludes a number of them. Specifically, it covers only the grants listed in Article I , Section 8 , and those vested in the “Government of the United States” and in “Departments” and “Officers” of that government. In other words, the Clause omits constitutional grants made to entities that are not part of the “Government of the United States,” even when those entities exercise “federal functions.” See, for example, //Ray v. Blair// , 343 U.S. 214 ( 1952 ) (holding that presidential electors, who ulti- mately derive their power from the Constitution, exercise a federal function but are not federal of- ficers or agents). The convention for proposing amendments is one of a handful of entities that falls into this category. Even if we did assume, for sake of argument, that Congress is a “Department” of the federal gov- ernment for other purposes, the rules for Article V are different. The difference is that (according to the courts) when Congress and state legislatures act in the amendment process, they do not act as the leg- islative branches of their respective govern- ments. Instead, they act as ad hoc assemblies for registering the popular will. They can exercise only the power granted by Article V, and not powers granted by other parts of the U.S. Consti- tution or by state constitutions. Thus, in Idaho v. Freeman ( 1981 ), a federal court ruled that: “Congress, outside the authority granted by Article V, has no power to act with regard to an amend- ment, i.e., it does not retain any of its traditional au- thority vested in it by Article I” [which includes the Necessary and Proper Clause]. (This case was later vacated as moot, but there were no problems with the merits of the ruling.) Or, as the Supreme Court of Missouri pointed out when addressing the state legislature’s Arti- cle V functions, “[The legislature] was not, strictly speaking, performing the functions of a legislative body for the state, but was acting as a representa- tive of the people, pursuant to authority delegated to it by the federal Constitution. . . ” State ex rel. Tate v. Sevier ( 1933 ). (The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case, meaning it refused to consider revers- ing this decision.) Again, when legislatures act under Article V they do so as separate assemblies, not as the legisla- tive branches of their governments. This is a very old principle, dating back to 1798 , when the Supreme Court held that congressional amend- ment proposals do not need presidential signa- ture . See also //United States v. Sprague // ( 1931 ). Well, if Congress cannot insert language in the “call” structuring the convention, can it pass laws for the same purpose? Again, the answer is “no.” A long list of 20 th century cases from courts at all levels holds that the amendment process is gov- erned by the express and implied provisions of Article V, not by other sources of law, such as statutes, state constitutions, or ordinary legisla- tive rules. See, for example, //Leser v. Garnett// // // ( 1922 ) and //Dyer v. Blair// // // ( 1975 ). Why would the Framers place in the Constitution a method by which Congress could largely control a convention created to bypass Congress? Were the Framers that stupid? Of course not.  The time has arrived for our state legislatures to stop falling victim to the fear-mongering tactics and conspiracy theories of extremist groups. For decades The John Birch Society (JBS) has been using fear tactics to manipulate state legis- lators into believing that an Article V convention for proposing amendments is a Constitutional Convention. To further their agenda they make the false claim that the 1787 Constitutional Con- vention was called by Congress to solely revise the Articles of Confederation and that the con- vention “ran away” because the delegates wrote an entirely new Constitution instead. These claims are false and have been refuted by historical facts and even the writings of the Framers themselves (see “ Can We Trust The Constitution ,” by Michael Farris , and Federalist 40 , written by James Madison ). This marketing campaign of fear titled “Stop a Con-Con” has silenced the voice of the people and has paralyzed some state legislatures from fulfilling their duty as the barrier against encroachments by the national government (see Federalist 85 ). Instead of supporting the states in their efforts to fight back against an overreaching federal gov- ernment, JBS has actually helped the federal government to go unchecked by preventing the states from using the very tool the Framers pro- vided to stop such usurpation of power. The John Birch Society claims to be for “less gov- ernment and more responsibility,” yet when state legislatures try to pass resolutions to actu- ally propose such amendments, JBS actively opposes them and even works to rescind resolu- tions that have passed! According to JBS President John McManus, it does not matter what amendment is being advo- cated by the states; they will oppose it regardless of the topic. JBS works to rescind resolutions even for amendments that they claim they would like to see proposed by Congress, such as repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of senators) and the Sixteenth Amend- ment (federal income tax). McManus states that only Congress should be allowed to propose amendments to the Consti- tution. Stop and consider that for a minute. He is actually trying to convince his membership and you as state legislators that those who are daily usurping the Constitution are the only ones who can be trusted to propose amendments to it! Does anyone truly believe that Congress will propose amendments to limit their own power? Of course not! You see, JBS does not trust you as a state legislator or the people to govern themselves. Does that sound like an organization that sup- ports “less government and more responsibility” to you? JBS will give lip service to the Constitu- tion, but when it comes to the states actually trying to use the Constitution to defend them- selves as intended by the Framers, JBS is anti-Constitutional. However, former JBS leaders were strong sup- porters of the states calling for an Article V convention for proposing amendments. As you are about to see, they not only understood Article V but they fully advocated for the states to hold a convention to propose an amendment that would fulfill their goal of “less government and more responsibility.” That amendment was known as the Liberty Amendment . In 1944 , Willis E. Stone, a descendant of Thomas Stone, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, drafted the Liberty Amendment, which sought to vastly restrict federal authority, cut government cost, protect private enter- prises, and repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Stone ultimately organized the Liberty Amend- ment Committee in all 50 states and worked for decades to have his amendment proposed either by Congress or by the states in an Article V convention. Shortly after JBS was founded in 1958 by Robert The John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission Ken Quinn, Regional Director for Convention of States Project Continued to back page 19  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject Welch, JBS members began supporting state leg- islatures in their efforts to pass resolutions for the Liberty Amendment. As one newspaper reported, “ Members of the four Birch societies in Bismarck , the state capi- tal [of North Dakota], were pushing in the legislature a proposal for a constitutional con- vention to act on an amendment…[the Liberty Amendment].” 1 In August of 1963 , Welch sent an urgent request asking all JBS chapter leaders and members to send telegrams and letters urging the Alabama Senate to pass the resolution calling for the Lib- erty Amendment . 2 Welch also produced a 15 -minute radio pro- gram for JBS called “Are You Listening Uncle Sam,” and, in 1967 , he dedicated two programs to the Liberty Amendment. On the program Stone explained that his organization was using both methods (Congress and an Article V con- vention) to propose the Liberty Amendment. In 1967 California State Senator John Schmitz, who was also a National Director for the John Birch Society , introduced the Liberty Amend- ment and called for a “national convention.” 3 In 1968 Welch joined Senator Schmitz as special guests at the National Convention of the Liberty Amendment Committee . 4 Obviously, Welch supported Stone’s efforts to have either Congress or the states propose the Liberty Amendment, and he used his time, resources, and relationships to make it happen. On October 9, 1975 , Representative Larry McDonald from Georgia, who served at the time on the John Birch Society’s National Council, introduced the Liberty Amendment in Congress and gave extensive testimony — including advocating for the states to propose it in an Article V convention . 5 In his book titled “ We Hold These Truths ,” Repre- sentative Larry McDonald accurately explains that Congress and the states are authorized to propose amendments: “Congress is authorized to propose constitu- tional amendments if it pleases. It is obligated to call a special convention to propose constitu- tional amendments if two-thirds of all state legislatures demand that it do so.” Nowhere in the writings of Welch or McDonald do you find them concerned about a “runaway convention” or that the entire Constitution could be thrown out in an Article V convention. In fact, they were one hundred percent behind the states in their efforts to use Article V to pro- pose amendments. It is only under the current leadership of JBS that this organization has turned its back on the Con- stitution and the process the Framers gave us to defend our security and liberties. In so doing, The John Birch Society has denied its history and betrayed its mission. In fact, in his article, “Falsehoods Mark the Campaign for a Constitutional Convention,” McManus denies all of the evidence to the con- trary. Though a “constitutional convention” is not the same thing as an Article V convention for proposing amendments, McManus and other current JBS leaders insist upon referring to an Article V convention of states as a “constitutional convention.” If the President of JBS is this mislead- ing about the history of his own organization, why would anyone in his right mind trust him in regards to the history of our Constitution? The time has arrived for our state legislatures to stop falling victim to the fear-mongering tactics and conspiracy theories of extremist groups. As representatives of the people and guardians of the Republic, you are the last resort in defending us against this overreaching federal government by proposing amendments to restore the balance of power back to the states. Time is running out. Will you be led by fear or will you be a fearless leader? 1. The Warren County Observer, March 27, 1961, page 5 2. The John Birch Society, August 30, 1963, Interim Bulletin 3. Daily Independent Journal February 24, 1967, page 2 4. Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, June 13, 1968, page 36 5. Congressional Record – House, October 9, 1975, 32634-32641) “This country consists of a union of sovereign States which hold the only power to ratify amendments… State legislatures hold concurrent power under the Constitution to initiate such amendments as they, the States and the people within them, require.” — Representative Larry McDonald, John Birch Society National Council & Chairman  The Process of an Article V Convention For Proposing Amendments 34 STATE LEGISLATURES APPLY FOR A CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS ON A SPECIFIED TOPIC • The topics specified in the applications must be the same, in order for them to aggregate. • The topics in the aggregated applications set the agenda for the Article V Convention. CONGRESS “CALLS” THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION, BY SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE • The entity that “calls” the meeting does not exercise any authority other than setting the time and place. • Issuing the call is a ministerial duty. THE STATES SELECT, INSTRUCT, AND SEND DELEGATES TO THE AMENDMENT-PROPOSING CONVENTION • All states can participate, even those that did not apply. • States select the delegates who will act as their agents at the convention, and instruct them on the scope of their authority. CONVENTION OCCURS. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF STATE DELEGATIONS ARE SENT TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION. • States may send as many delegates as they choose, but each state only gets one vote when the convention begins. CONGRESS SELECTS THE METHOD OF STATE RATIFICATION • By the specific terms of Article V, Congress must choose between two options: ratification by state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ONLY BECOME EFFECTIVE IF RATIFIED BY 38 STATES • It only takes 13 states to stop a bad amendment. THE CONSTITUTION IS AMENDED • By asserting your constitutional power under Article V, you can act as a final check on rampant federal overreach, and restore the proper balance of power. Continued to back page  Continued from front page The restrictions, limitations, and controls on the Article V process include all of the following, acting in conjunction: • The convention’s agenda is set by the 34 state applications (for the Convention of States Project, amendment proposals must “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”); • Once 34 states apply for a convention on the same topic and the convention is called, state legislatures select and instruct their delegates; • At the convention, any single delegate can object to off-topic proposals as “out of order,” for which the objection must be sustained; • At the convention, a majority of the states must vote in favor of any proposal in order for it to advance to the ratification stage; • Any delegate who proposes or votes in favor of an amendment beyond the scope of the agreed agenda OR beyond the scope of his/her state legislature’s instructions can be recalled by the state legislature and subjected to penalties according to state law; • Because delegates act as the agents of their state legislatures, a delegate’s vote that exceeds his/her instructions or authority is void; • The courts could be called upon, if needed, to protect the process at any point (there are abundant precedents demonstrating that, in fact, the courts DO acknowledge and protect the historical Article V procedures); • Thirty-eight states must ratify any proposed amendments for them to become effective. This means that it only takes 13 states to block a bad proposal. (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created this process. And they intended for you to use it to muzzle a power-hungry national government. THE TIME IS NOW.  As they moved westward, their strongest men inexplicably dropped dead along the trail. In a company of pioneers trudging forward through harsh, early winter conditions, the sudden deaths caused great concern. The company leader ordered an investigation. The ones still alive were all half-frozen. As their supplies dwindled, their daily ration of food was one small, eight-ounce pouch of flour. These strong men were scooping much of their flour into their children’s pouches so that they might make it safely to their land of promise. The hardships these pioneers endured paled in comparison to their vision to secure their own piece of land and the right to govern themselves, and to pass on to their children the opportunity to prosper. The movie “Monumental” depicts how the pilgrims suffered intensely during their first winter. Nevertheless, the sickly settlers refused to give up and sail back to England, having a “generational vision that they could lay their lives down in this wilderness and literally put their faces down in the mud and have their children walk on their backs to a better day.” Aren’t we all pioneers and pilgrims? Don’t we all share the same “generational vision” of healthier air, water and wildlife; safe and vibrant communities; and abun- dant recreation? We’ve been told for decades now that, to achieve this promise, we have to trust distant federal bureaucrats with the management of our unique lands. However, federal bureau- crats, more concerned with policies than promises, lock up our lands like they are in a museum — Hands Off, Don’t Touch! This “museum management” results in overgrown forests and record-setting cata- strophic wildfires that pollute our air, destroy water supplies and habitat, and kill wildlife in the millions, leaving communities depressed and unsafe, and recreation areas burned up or blocked off. It’s Not Working! It’s not working for the Oregon woman who was raped and brutalized in her own home because federal policies shut down the timber industry that funded the sher- iff’s department. When she called 911, all the operator could do was to tell her to “call back tomorrow” because, with only two deputies, the sheriff’s office could not respond. It’s not working for the little bear cub in eastern Washington state who crawled des- perately on her little paws, burned up to her elbows, to find anywhere that was not an inferno. State wildlife agents found her and she was nursed to health, only to be released into another overgrown forest. Every year, millions of her forest mates are not so lucky. Public Lands: A “Generational Vision” Ken Ivory is a Utah State Representative and Director of the Free the Lands Project with Federalism in Action. Continued to back page The federal government loses 27 cents for every dollar it spends on land management, a loss to taxpayers of approximately $ 2 billion per year.  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject It’s not working for the lands and people of Montana. Firefighters in the state put out wildfires, on average, at less than 10 acres. Their helicopters are equipped to carry more water and drop it faster. When wild- fires broke out on federal lands, five Montana crews were in the air. However, the U.S. Forest Service grounded them because the Montana helicopters were “not on their approved list.” The Montana crews sat there on the ground watching thou- sands upon thousands of acres burn, their air polluted for weeks, and their water sup- plies decimated. It’s not working for Garfield County, Utah, where they recently declared an economic state of emergency. Inflicted by a host of federal lands policies, from a two million- acre national monument that shut down the world’s largest reserve of the cleanest coal, to federal policies that decimated their timber and livestock industries, the number one export from Garfield County is now their children. It’s not working for national security or energy independence. China controls nearly 90 % of the world market for rare earth ele- ments that are vital to the technology that keeps our planes in the air, ships on the water, and troops on the field. We have rare earth elements in abundance locked up from New Mexico to Alaska in federally controlled lands. We are dependent on foreign powers that manipulate the price and supply of our energy. According to the U.S. GAO, there is more recoverable oil in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming than in the rest of the world combined, locked up in federally controlled lands. It’s not working for the nation. The federal government extracts billions of dollars each year from taxpayers east of the Rockies, to subsidize western communities that are thwarted in their ability to raise sufficient revenues for public services because the federal government controls up to 90% of their lands. Worse yet, Congress regularly holds these funds to western communities hostage in a sort of “two-bit protection racket,” as Sen. Mike Lee calls it, to garner western votes for hundreds of billions to be doled out from the “dysfunctional favor bank” that epitomizes D.C. politics. This undermines our system of strong, self-reliant states meant to check federal overreach. So, what’s the answer? Have you ever had a garden? If so, you know that a healthy garden is a productive garden, and a pro- ductive garden is a healthy garden. Who better to tend the garden than those who know the unique soil, climate, pests, and local conditions best, and who are on hand to address the unforeseen circumstances that always arise? It’s time to Free the Lands for more effective local care and management. Who better to care for the unique lands and interests of Nevada ( 85 % federally controlled) than Nevadans? Or, for the unique lands of Alaska (more than 225 million acres feder- ally controlled) than Alaskans? With the same “generational vision” that built this nation, we can secure the oppor- tunity for our children to prosper. A Convention of States has the power to propose amendments that will rein in an out-of-control federal land baron, transition to more effective local care of our unique lands, and unleash a national economic renaissance. What’s in your flour pouch? With improved management … vast ecosystems will have the opportunity to recover, blue ribbon fisheries will be restored, the threat of massive wildfires will be reduced, and big game will be able to flourish again.  Amendments work. In fact, amendments have had a major impact on American political life, mostly for good. Opponents of a Convention of States long argued there was an unacceptable risk that a convention might do too much. It now appears they were mistaken. So they increasingly argue that amendments cannot do enough. The gist of this argument is that amendments would accomplish nothing because federal officials would violate amendments as read- ily as they violate the original Constitution. Opponents will soon find their new position even less defensible than the old. This is be- cause the contention that amendments are useless flatly contradicts over two centuries of American experience — experience that demonstrates that amendments work . In fact, amendments have had a major impact on American political life, mostly for good. The Framers inserted an amendment process into the Constitution to render the underlying system less fragile and more durable. They saw the amendment mecha- nism as a way to: • correct drafting errors; • resolve constitutional disputes, such as by reversing bad Supreme Court decisions; • respond to changed conditions; and • correct and forestall governmental abuse. The Framers turned out to be correct, be- cause in the intervening years we have adopted amendments for all four of those reasons. Today, nearly all of these amend- ments are accepted by the overwhelming majority of Americans, and all but very few remain in full effect. Possibly because ratifica- tion of a constitutional amendment is a pow- erful expression of popular political will, amendments have proved more durable than some parts of the original Constitution. Following are some examples: Correcting Drafting Errors Although the Framers were very great peo- ple, they still were human, and they occa- sionally erred. Thus, they inserted into the Constitution qualifications for Senators, Representatives, and the President, but omit- ted any for Vice President. They also adopted a presidential/vice presidential elec- tion procedure that, while initially plausible, proved unacceptable in practice. The founding generation proposed and rati- fied the Twelfth Amendment to correct those mistakes. The Twenty-Fifth Amend- ment addressed some other deficiencies in Article II, which deals with the presidency. Both amendments are in full effect today. Resolving Constitutional Disputes and Overruling the Supreme Court The Framers wrote most of the Constitution in clear language, but they knew that, as with any legal document, there would be differences of interpretation. The amend- ment process was a way of resolving inter- pretive disputes. The founding generation employed it for this purpose just seven years after the Constitu- tion came into effect. In //Chisholm v. Georgia// , the Supreme Court misinterpreted the word- ing of Article III defining the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Eleventh Amendment reversed that decision. The Lamp of Experience: Constitutional Amendments Work Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center Continued to back page 8  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Face book .com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject In 1857 , the Court issued //Dred Scott v. Sand-// //ford// , in which it erroneously interpreted the Constitution to deny citizenship to African Americans. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reversed that case. In 1970 , the Court decided //Oregon v.// //Mitchell// , whose misinterpretation of the Con- stitution created a national election law mess. A year later, Americans cleaned up the mess by ratifying the Twenty-Sixth Amendment . All these amendments are in full effect today, and fully respected by the courts. Responding to Changed Conditions The Twentieth Amendment is the most obvi- ous example of a response to changed con- ditions. Reflecting improvements in trans- portation since the Founding, it moved the inauguration of Congress and President from March to the January following election. Similarly, the Nineteenth Amendment , which assured women the vote in states not al- ready granting it, was passed for reasons be- yond simple fairness. During the 1800 s, medical and technological advances made possible by a vigorous market economy im- proved the position of women immeasur- ably and rendered their political participa- tion far more feasible. Without these changes, I doubt the Nineteenth Amend- ment would have been adopted. Needless to say, the Nineteenth and Twenti- eth Amendments are in full effect many years after they were ratified. Correcting and Forestalling Government Abuse Avoiding and correcting government abuse was a principal reason the Constitutional Convention unanimously inserted the state- driven convention procedure into Article V. Our failure to use that procedure helps ex- plain why the earlier constitutional barriers against federal overreaching seem a little ragged. Before looking at the problems, how- ever, let’s look at some successes: • We adopted the Thirteenth , Fourteenth , Fifteenth , and Twenty-Fourth Amend- ments to correct state abuses of power. All of these are in substantially full effect. • In 1992 , we ratified the Twenty-Seventh Amendment , 203 years after James Madi- son first proposed it. It limits congressional pay raises, although some would say not enough. • In 1951 , we adopted the Twenty-Second Amendment , limiting the President to two terms. Eleven Presidents later, it remains in full force, and few would contend it has not made a difference. Now the problems: Because we have not used the convention process, the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights ) remain al- most the only amendments significantly lim- iting congressional overreaching. I suppose that if the Founders had listened to the “amendments won’t make any difference” crowd, they would not have adopted the Bill of Rights either. But I don’t know anyone to- day who seriously claims the Bill of Rights has made no difference. “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience,” Patrick Henry said. “I know of no way of judg- ing of the future but by the past.” In this case, the lamp of experience sheds light unmistakably bright and clear: Constitu- tional amendments work. //Originally appeared in the // //American Thinker// //.// Women’s Suffrage envoys on and about the East Steps of the Capitol, May 9, 1914. The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified August 18, 1920.  We can’t walk boldly into our future, without first understanding our history. Some people contend that our Constitution was illegally adopted as the result of a “run- away convention.” They make two claims: 1. The convention delegates were instructed to merely amend the Ar ticles of Confederation, but they wrote a whole new document. 2. The ratification process was improperly changed from 13 state legislatures to 9 state ratification conventions. The Delegates Obeyed Their Instructions from the States The claim that the delegates disobeyed their instructions is based on the idea that Congress called the Constitutional Convention. Proponents of this view assert that Congress 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 po- litical 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 ex- igencies of the Union.” What role was Congress to play in calling the Convention? None. The Annapolis delegates sent copies of their resolution to Congress solely “from motives of respect.” What authority did the Ar ticles of Confederation give to Congress to call such a Convention? None. The power of Congress under the Articles was strictly limited, and there was no theory of implied powers. The states 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 vari- ations in wording (“render the Federal Constitution adequate”). Two states, New York and Massachusetts, followed the for- mula stated by Congress (“solely amend the Articles” as well as “render the Federal Constitution adequate”). Every student of history should know that Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering The “Runaway Convention” Myth Michael P. Farris, JD, LLM, Convention of States Action — Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies Continued to back page  Continued from front page History tells the story. The Constitution was legally adopted. Now, let’s move on to getting our nation back to the greatness the Founders originally envisioned. 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 inspec- tion of the commissions given to the mem- bers 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 di- rections they were given by each of their states. According to Madison, the February 21 st 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. The Ratification Process Was Properly Changed The Articles of Confederation required any amendments to be approved by Congress and ratified by all 13 state legislatures. Moreover, the Annapolis Convention and a clear majority of the states insisted that any amendments coming from the Constitutional Convention would have to be approved in this same manner—by Congress and all 13 state legislatures. The reason for this rule can be found in the principles of international law. At the time, the states were sovereigns. The Articles of Confederation were, in essence, a treaty be- tween 13 sovereign nations. Normally, the only way changes in a treaty can be ratified is by the approval of all parties to the treaty. However, a treaty can provide for some- thing less than unanimous approval if all the parties agree to a new approval process be- fore it goes into effect. This is exactly what the Founders did. When the Convention sent its draft of the Constitution to Congress, it also recom- mended a new ratification process. Congress approved both the Constitution itself and the new process. Along with changing the number of re- quired states from 13 to 9 , the new ratifica- tion process required that state conventions ratify the Constitution rather than state legislatures. This was done in ac- cord with the preamble of the Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land would be ratified in the name of “We the People” rather than “We the States.” But before this change in ratification could be valid, all 13 state legislatures would also have to consent to the new method. All 13 state legislatures did just this by calling conventions of the people to vote on the merits of the Constitution. Twelve states held popular elections to vote for delegates. Rhode Island made every voter a delegate and held a series of town meetings to vote on the Constitution. Thus, every state legislature consented to the new ratification process thereby validating the Constitution’s requirements for ratification. Those who claim to be constitutionalists while contending that the Constitution was illegally adopted are undermining themselves. It is like saying George Washington was a great American hero, but he was also a British spy. I stand with the integrity of our Founders who properly drafted and properly ratified the Constitution. (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject  Our constitutional rights, especially our Sec- ond Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are in peril. With every tragic violent crime, liberals renew their demands for Congress and state legislatures to enact so- called “commonsense gun control” meas- ures designed to chip away at our individual constitutional right to armed self defense. Indeed, were it not for the determination and sheer political muscle of the National Rifle Association, Senator Feinstein’s 2013 bill to outlaw so-called “assault weapons” and other firearms might well have passed. But the most potent threat facing the Second Amendment comes not from Congress, but from the Supreme Court. Four justices of the Supreme Court do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individ- ual right to keep and bear arms. They be- lieve that Congress and state legislatures are free not only to restrict firearms owner- ship by law-abiding Americans, but to ban firearms altogether. If the Liberals get one more vote on the Supreme Court, the Sec- ond Amendment will be no more. Constitutional law has been the dominant focus of my practice for most of my career as a lawyer, first in the Justice Department as President Reagan’s chief constitutional lawyer and the chairman of the President’s Working Group on Federalism, and since then as a constitutional litigator in private practice. For almost three decades, I have represented dozens of states and many other clients in constitutional cases, including many Second Amendment cases. In 2001, for example, I argued the first federal ap- pellate case to hold that the Second Amend- ment guarantees every law-abiding respon- sible adult citizen an individual right to keep and bear arms. And in 2013 I testified before the Senate in opposition to Senator Fein- stein’s anti-gun bill, arguing that it would violate the Second Amendment. So I am not accustomed to being accused of supporting a scheme that would “put our Second Amendment rights on the chopping block.” This charge is being hurled by a small gun- rights group against me and many other con- stitutional conservatives because we have urged the states to use their sovereign power under Article V of the Constitution to call for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments designed to rein in the federal government’s power. The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V conven- tion of the states, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does. The federal government’s unrelenting encroachment upon the sovereign rights of Continued on back page An Open Letter Concerning The Second Amendment and The Convention of States Project From Charles J. Cooper Appellate Attorney and Litigator Our constitutional rights, especially our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are in peril.  Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject the states and the individual rights of citi- zens, and the Supreme Court’s failure to prevent it, have led me to join the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project. The Project’s mission is to urge 34 state legislatures to call for an Article V convention limited to proposing constitutional amendments that “impose fis- cal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.” I am joined in this effort by many well-known constitutional conserva- tives, including Mark Levin, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert George, Michael Farris, Mark Meckler, Professor Robert Natelson, Andrew McCarthy, Pro- fessor John Eastman, Ambassador Boyden Gray, and Professor Nelson Lund. All of us have carefully studied the original meaning of Article V, and not one of us would sup- port an Article V convention if we believed it would pose a significant threat to our Second Amendment rights or any of our constitutional freedoms. To the contrary, our mission is to reclaim our democratic and individual freedoms from an overreach- ing federal government. The Framers of our Constitution carefully limited the federal government’s powers by specifically enumerating those powers in Article I, and the states promptly ensured that the Constitution would expressly protect the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” by adopting the Second Amendment. But the Framers understood human nature, and they could foresee a day when the fed- eral government would yield to the “en- croaching spirit of power,” as James Madi- son put in the Federalist Papers, and would invade the sovereign domain of the states and infringe the rights of the citizens. The Framers also knew that the states would be powerless to remedy the federal govern- ment’s encroachments if the process of amending the Constitution could be initiated only by Congress; as Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, “the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority” it claims. So the Framers wisely equipped the states with the means of reclaiming their sovereign powers and protecting the rights of their citizens, even in the face of con- gressional opposition. Article V vests the states with unilateral power to convene for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments and to control the amending process from beginning to end on all sub- stantive matters. The day foreseen by the Framers – the day when the federal government far exceeded the limits of its enumerated powers – arrived many years ago. The Framers took care in Article V to equip the people, acting through their state legislatures, with the power to put a stop to it. It is high time they used it. Charles J. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. Named by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Wash- ington, he has over 35 years of legal ex- perience in government and private prac- tice, with several appearances before the United States Supreme Court and scores of other successful cases on both the trial and appellate levels. Continued from front page The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V convention of the states, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does.  The mistakes these authors made can be attributed partly to the agenda-driven nature of their writings, and their failure to examine many historical sources. This past week, conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly contributed a short piece to Townhall.com , in which she attacked the movement for an Article V convention. As I wrote in my response , she was relying on claims about the convention that had been superseded by modern research. You can classify modern Article V writing in three broad waves. (There are many exceptions, but the generalization is valid, I think.) The first wave consisted of publications from the 1960 s and 1970 s, mostly — but not exclusively—by liberal academics who opposed conservative efforts to trigger a convention. Examples include articles by Yale’s Charles Black, William and Mary’s William Swindler, Duke’s Walter Dellinger, and Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe. Typically, these authors concluded that an Article V “constitutional convention” (as they called it) could not be limited to a single subject. That, as we now know, was a mistake. A related error was their assumption that, when the Founders referred to a “general” convention, they meant a convention with unlimited subject matter. Actually, a “general convention” meant one in which all the states, or at least states from all regions, participated. It was the opposite of a “partial” or regional convention, and it had nothing to do with the scope of the subject matter. The mistakes these authors made can be attributed partly to the agenda-driven nature of their writings, and their failure to examine many historical sources. They seldom ventured beyond The Federalist Papers and a few pages from the transcript of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Also in the First Wave was a 1973 study sponsored by the American Bar Associa- tion. The ABA document did conclude that a “constitutional convention” could be limited, but it was not a very solid piece of research, perhaps because (if my infor- mation is accurate) the principal writers were not professional scholars, but a pair of law students. The Second Wave began in 1979 with a publication issued by President Carter’s U.S. Office of Legal Counsel and written by attorney John Harmon. For its time, it was a particularly thorough job. Among the other authors in this wave were Grover Rees III and the University of Minnesota’s Michael Stokes Paulsen. The most elaborate publication of this era was by Russell Caplan, whose book, //Constitutional Brinksmanship// , was released by Oxford University Press in 1988. S e c o nd W a ve a u t ho r s a c c e s s e d f a r more material than their predecessors. They paid more attention to the 1787–90 How We Have Learned More and More About the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments” Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject ratification debates. Caplan even made some reference to earlier interstate con- ventions. Most of them (Paulsen was an exception) correctly concluded that an Article V gathering could be limited. But Second Wave writers did make some mistakes. They continued to refer to an Article V conclave as a “constitutional con- vention.” Some of them assumed, as some First Wave writers had, that Congress had broad authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate the convention and the selection and apportionment of delegates. None investigated the records of other interstate conventions in detail, or fully grasped their significance. T h e T h i r d W a v e b e g a n i n t h e 2 1 s t century. Its contributing authors include the University of San Diego’s Michael Rappaport, former House of Representa- tives Senior Counsel Mike Stern, the Goldwater Institute’s Nick Dranias, and myself. We have been able to place the Article V convention into its larger legal and historical context. Like most of the Second Wave writers, we understand that an Article V convention can be limited. But we also have learned a lot of other things: The gathering is not a constitutional convention, it was modeled after a long tradition of limited-purpose gatherings, and it is governed by a rich his- tory of practice and case law. We also know that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not apply to conven- tions. That clause gives Congress power to make laws to carry into execution certain enumerated powers and “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Govern- ment of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” But a con- vention for proposing amendments is not part of the “Government of the United States,” nor is it a “Department or Officer thereof.” Supreme Court precedent, as well as the wording of the Constitution, make this clear. For this and other reasons, con- gressional powers over the process are quite limited. A few days ago, a friend sent me a 1987 report issued by the U.S. Justice Depart- ment . The title is “Limited Constitutional Conventions Under Article V of the United States Constitution.” As the date would suggest, this is a typical Second Wave publication. In addition to labeling an Article V Convention as a “constitutional convention,” it also assumes that a “gen- eral” convention is one that is unlimited as to subject matter. It shows no familiarity with any previous interstate conventions other than the 1787 gathering. It makes the erroneous assumption that the latter meeting was called by Congress under the Articles of Confederation. It fails to under- stand the nature of the convention as a meeting of commissioners from state legislatures. It asserts erroneously that all 19 th century state applications were for an unlimited convention. (In fact, several were limited.) And it makes the inaccurate assumption that Congress has power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to prescribe procedures for an amend- ments convention. Such documents are of historical interest, but they should no longer be taken as authoritative. We have been able to place the Article V convention into its larger legal and historical context.  One source of security we have… is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the [amendment] procedure. One source of security we have in using the Constitution’s amendment process is the courts’ (including the U.S. Supreme Court) long history of protecting the integrity of the procedure. Many of those who pontificate on the subject are largely unaware of this jurisprudence. As a result, they often debate questions that the courts have long resolved or promote scenarios (such as the “runaway” scenario) that the law has long foreclosed. Here are some of the key issues the courts have addressed, either in binding judgments or in what lawyers call “per- suasive authority.” This listing of cases is only partial. • Article V grants enumerated powers to named assemblies—that is, to Congress, state legislatures, conventions for propos- ing amendments, and state conventions. When an assembly acts under Article V, that assembly executes a “federal func- tion” different from whatever other responsibilities it may have. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) ; Leser v. Gar- nett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) ; State ex rel. Donnelly v. Myers, 127 Ohio St. 104, 186 N.E. 918 (1933 ); Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975 ) (Justice Stevens). • Article V gives authority to named assemblies, without participation by the executive. Hollingsworth v. Virginia , 3 U.S. ( 3 Dall.) 378 (1798) . • Where the language of Article V is clear, it must be enforced as written. United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931 ). • That does not mean, as some have claimed, that judges may never go beyond reading the words and guessing what they signify. Rather, a court may con- sider the history underlying Article V. Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975 ) (Justice Stevens). It may also con- sider what is implied as well as what is expressed. Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 ( 1921 ). In other words, courts apply the same rules of interpretation to Article V as elsewhere. • Just as other enumerated powers in the Constitution bring with them certain inci- dental authority, so also do the powers enumerated in Article V. State ex rel. Donnelly v. Myers, 127 Ohio St. 104, 186 N.E. 918 (1933). This point and the one previous are important in determining the scope of such Article V words as “call,” “convention,” and “application.” • The two-thirds vote required in Congress for proposing amendments is two thirds of a quorum present and voting, not of the entire membership. How the Courts have Clarified the Constitution’s Amendment Process Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject State of Rhode Island v. Palmer , 253 U.S. 320 (1920). • A convention for proposing amend- ments is, like all of its predecessors, a “convention of the states.” Smith v. Union Bank, 30 U.S. 518, 528 (1831). The national government is not concerned with how Article V conventions or state legislatures are constituted. United States v. Thibault , 47 F.2 d 169 (2d Cir. 1931 ). • No legislature or convention has power to alter the ratification procedure. That is fixed by Article V. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) ; United States v. Sprague , 282 U.S. 716 (1931) . Some “runaway” alarmists have suggested that a convention for proposing amendments could decree ratification by national referendum, but the Supreme Court has ruled this out. Dodge v. Woolsey , 59 U.S. 331 (1855) . Neither can a state mutate its own ratifying proce- dure into a referendum. State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 320 (1920). • Congress may not try to manipulate the ratification procedure, other than by choosing one of two specified “modes of ratification.” Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981 ), a judgment vacated as moot by Carmen v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982) ; compare United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931). • A convention meeting under Article V may be limited to its purpose. I n R e Opinion of the Justices, 204 N.C. 306, 172 S.E. 474 (1933). • But an outside body may not dictate an Article V assembly’s rules and procedures. Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) ; Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975 ) (Justice Stevens). • Nor may the assembly be compelled to resolve the issue presented to it in a particular way. State ex rel. Harper v. Waltermire , 691 P.2d 826 ( 1984 ); AFL- CIO v. Eu, 686 P.2d 609 (Cal. 1984 ); Miller v. Moore, 169 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 1999 ); Gralike v. Cook, 191 F.3d 911 , 924-25 (8 th Cir. 1999) , affirmed on other grounds sub nom. Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001) ; Barker v. Hazeltine, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1094 (D.S.D. 1998 ); League of Women Voters of Maine v. Gwadosky , 966 F. Supp. 52 (D. Me. 1997 ); Donovan v. Priest, 931 S.W.2d 119 (Ark. 1996). • Article V functions are complete when a convention or legislature has acted. There is no need for other officials to pro- claim the action. United States ex rel. Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 398 (D.C. Cir. 1920 ), affirmed 257 U.S. 619 (1921 ). As these cases illustrate, the courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries. The courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries.  The Founders created the convention for precisely the kind of situation we face now. The Founders bequeathed to Americans a method to bypass the federal government and amend the Constitution, empowering two-thirds of the states to call an amendments convention. In the wake of Mark Levin’s bestselling book, //The Liberty Amendments// , proposing just such a convention, some have raised entirely unnecessary alarms. Sur- prisingly, a few of the leading lights of conservatism have been among the alarmists. But their concerns are based on an incom- plete reading of history and judicial case law. Phyllis Schlafly is a great American and a great leader, but her speculations about the nature of the Constitution’s “convention for proposing amendments” are nearly as quaint as Dante’s speculations about the solar system. Those speculations simply overlook the last three decades of research into the background and subsequent history of the Constitution’s amendment process. They also ignore how that process actually works, and how the courts elucidate it. Article V of the Constitution provides for a “convention for proposing amendments.” The Founders inserted this provision to enable the people, acting through their state legislatures, to rein in an abusive or runaway federal gov- ernment. In other words, the Founders created the convention for precisely the kind of situa- tion we face now. Mrs. Schlafly doesn’t think we know much else about the process. She writes, “Everything else about how an Article V Convention would func- tion, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.” But she’s wrong. There is no need to guess. There is a great deal we know about the subject. The “convention for proposing amendments” was consciously modeled on federal conven- tions held during the century leading up to the Constitutional Convention. During this period the states — and before Independence, the colonies — met together on average about every 40 months. These were meetings of sep- arate governments, and their protocols were based on international practice. Those proto- cols were well-established and are inherent in Article V. Each federal convention has been called to address one or more discrete, prescribed prob- lems. A convention “call” cannot determine how many delegates (“commissioners”) each state sends or how they are chosen. That is a matter for each state legislature to decide. A convention for proposing amendments is a meeting of sovereignties or semi-sovereignties, and each state has one vote. Each state com- missioner is empowered and instructed by his or her state legislature or its designee. As was true of earlier interstate gatherings, the convention for proposing amendments is called to propose solutions to discrete, pre- assigned problems. There is no record of any federal convention significantly exceeding its pre-assigned mandate — not even the Consti- tutional Convention, despite erroneous claims to the contrary. The state legislatures’ applications fix the sub- ject-matter for a convention for proposing The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center Continued to back page  (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject Continued from front page amendments. When two-thirds of the states apply on a given subject, Congress must call the convention. However, the congressional call is limited to the time and place of meeting, and to reciting the state-determined subject. In the unlikely event that the convention strays from its prescribed agenda (and the commis- sioners escape recall), any “proposal” they issue is ultra vires (“beyond powers”) and void. Congress may not choose a “mode of ratifica- tion” for that proposal, and the necessary three-quarters of the states would not ratify it in any event. Contrary to Mrs. Schlafly’s claim that “Article V doesn’t give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen,” the courts can and do adjudicate Article V cases. There has been a long line of those cases from 1798 into the 21 st century. “But,” you might ask, “Will the prescribed con- vention procedures actually work?“ They already have. In 1861 , in an effort to prevent the Civil War, the Virginia legislature called for an interstate gathering formally enti- tled the Washington Conference Convention and, informally, the Washington Peace Confer - ence . The idea was that the convention would draft and propose one or more constitutional amendments that, if ratified, would weaken extremists in both the North and the South, and thereby save the Union. This gathering differed from an Article V convention prima- rily in that it made its proposal to Congress rather than to the states. In virtually every other respect, however, it was a blueprint for an Article V convention. When the convention met in Washington, D.C., on February 4, 1861 , seven states already had seceded. Of the 26 then remain- i n g i n t h e U n i o n , 2 1 s e n t c o m m i t t e e s (delegations). The conference lasted until February 27 , when it proposed a 7 -section constitutional amendment. The assembly followed to the letter the convention rules established during the 18 th century—the same rules relied on by the Constitution’s Framers when they provided for a Convention for Proposing Amendments. Specifically: • The convention call fixed the place, time, and topic, but did not try to dictate other mat- ters, such as selection of commissioners (delegates) or convention rules. • At the convention, voting was by state. One vote was, apparently inadvertently, taken per capita, but that was quickly corrected. • The committee from each state was selected in the manner that state’s leg- islature directed. • The conclave adopted its own rules and selected its own officers. Former President John Tyler served as president. • The commissioners stayed on topic. One commissioner made a motion that was arguably off topic (changing the President’s term of office), but that was voted down without debate. Congress subsequently deadlocked over the amendment, but the convention itself did everything right: It followed all the protocols listed above, and it produced a compromise amendment. Although the convention met in a time of enormous stress, this “dry run” came off well, with none of Mrs. Schlafly’s specula- tive “horribles.” In any political procedure, there are always uncertainties, but in this case they are far fewer than predicted by anti-convention alarmists. And they must be balanced against a certainty: Unless we use the procedure the Founders gave us to rein in a runaway Congress, then Congress will surely continue to run away. In any political procedure, there are always uncertainties, but in this case they are far fewer than predicted by anti-convention alarmists.  Article V provides two methods to pro- pose constitutional amendments—one controlled by Congress and one con- trolled by the state legislatures. In the last two years, there has been a signifi- cant renewal of interest in employing the state-based method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. This newfound interest in Article V arises largely from the belief that the Con- gress will never propose amendments that impose meaningful restrictions on federal power. There are only two “Article V” move- ments that have made significant progress: the Balanced Budget Amend- ment and the Convention of States Project. The first (BBA) seeks one sin- gle amendment requiring the federal government to adopt a balanced budget. The second (COS) seeks broad limitations on federal power—specifi- cally, “imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal govern- ment, and imposing term limits on fed- eral officials.” The COS Project was launched in the fall of 2013, and in its first year secured passage of a formal application from the legislatures of Georgia, Florida, and Alaska. The BBA project has been underway for over forty years and has secured a variety of applications in a great num- ber of states. However, determining the current number of states that have a valid, pending BBA application pres- ents a challenge. Two issues make counting difficult. First, there is signifi- cant variance among the language of the various BBA applications, which raises potential problems with aggrega- tion. Second, many states have rescinded their prior BBA applications. We will discuss these legal issues below in Section 4. The COS Project is working to pass applications with identical operative language in 34 states. This ensures that no issues of aggregation can arise. Moreover, no states have rescinded a COS application. There are at least five significant reasons why a state legislature should adopt a COS application even if it has already adopted a valid BBA application. 1.There is no rule against a state passing two or more applications. Every Article V application from a state legislature must identify its purpose. There have been over 400 applications in the history of the Republic, and yet there has never been an Article V Con- vention because two-thirds of the states have never agreed on the subject mat- ter. There have been countless occa- sions when a state has passed a second or third application for a Convention on a different topic, even while a prior application was still pending. This historical practice reflects com- mon sense. There may be multiple issues that states want to see addressed through a constitutional amendment. And the process of building a coalition of 34 states is sufficiently daunting that the states see the wisdom in supporting multiple efforts that use varying approaches to accomplish their goals. Why a State Should Adopt an Article V Application for A Convention of States if It Has Already Adopted a Balanced Budget Amendment Application Michael P. Farris, JD, LLM, Convention of States Action — Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies Continued to page 2 1  appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of the estimated Federal revenues for that fiscal year, excluding any rev- enues derived from borrowing; and this prohibition extends to all Federal appropriations and all estimated Fed- eral revenues, excluding any revenues derived from borrowing.” It goes on to specify circumstances under which the requirement could be suspended. Mississippi’s application also calls for the proposal of a specifically-worded amendment, but its language is differ- ent from Maryland’s proposal. Missis- sippi’s language would prohibit con- gressional appropriations that would exceed revenues in a given fiscal year, but also requires that the national debt be repaid within a specified timeline at a specified rate, etc. Still other states’ resolutions for a BBA demonstrate additional variations on the theme. This raises a very serious concern about aggregation. While Congress has a very limited role in the state-initiated process of proposing amendments, leg- islative practice and the text of Article V suggest that Congress determines when 34 states have applied for a con- vention on the same subject. The reality is that if the state applica- tions are not uniform or essentially uni- form (as to their operative language), Congress will be entitled to make a political judgment about whether the applications should be aggregated. If there is a simple majority in both houses of Congress that favor an Arti- cle V Convention to consider a BBA, then Congress will likely grant a great deal of latitude on the issue of aggrega- tion. However, if a majority of either house of Congress is opposed to either the idea of a Balanced Budget Amend- ment or the convening of an Article V Convention in general, Congress would “interpret” the applications very nar- rowly and conclude that 34 states have not applied for a convention on the same subject. Regardless of which way the vote goes, litigation will certainly follow to test the question of aggregation. And while good substantive arguments can be made to bolster the notion that aggregation should be broadly accepted rather than narrowly confined, the courts would likely avoid deciding this question. In fact, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will take the position that the question of aggregation is a political question whenever the state applica- tions are not identical or essentially identical as to their operative language. Litigation on this point would add two to four years to the process of calling a BBA convention, because the legal issues will be viewed as important and sufficiently close to merit full consideration. In short, litigation will prolong the process, and whatever Congress decides on the BBA aggregation issue is likely to be affirmed in the courts. The Convention of States Project avoids this problem altogether. Our strategy is for 34 states to commit to adopting our model language for the operative portion of their applications, thus precluding any legitimate question about aggregation. Congress will have no cause to make a political judgment, and the courts will enforce the direct language of Article V forcefully upon such facts. 5. Our nation doesn’t have time to wait and see what will happen with a BBA before it tackles the issues raised by the COS. The problems our nation faces are com- plex and urgent. If we are going to pre- serve liberty, restore self-governance and prevent an economic collapse, we must act promptly. Under the best case scenario for the BBA, sufficient applications will be amassed in 2016. If we add just two years for litigation, we will be at 2018 before a convention could be held. Then there will be the ratification fight that will surely last until 2020. The critical issues that we can address through COS cannot safely be delayed until 2020. Since there is no barrier to prevent a state from passing both a BBA and COS, there is every reason to proceed with both applications as quickly as possible in as many states as possible. 3 There is no barrier to prevent a state from passing both a BBA and COS. We must proceed with both applications as quickly as possible in as many states as possible. Continued from page 1 2 2. Only the COS application seeks to restore federalism. The BBA seeks to prohibit the federal government from taking the nation even deeper into debt. This is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that COS supports. However, we also seek to address the root cause of the prob- lem. The root cause of debt is excessive federal spending. And the cause of excessive spending is, at least in signif- icant part, entitlement and other domes- tic programs that are within the exclu- sive jurisdiction of the states under the original meaning of the Constitution. By 2020, 89% of the federal budget will need to be devoted to just four items: interest on the national debt, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This is untenable and leaves our nation’s infra- structure and defense at great risk. A BBA alone will not cure this problem. We must restrict Congress’ virtually unlimited power to spend. In the Obamacare decision, Chief Jus- tice Roberts’ majority ruling held that there is no constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to tax and spend. This is the core problem. And, we must fix it. This means a return to the states of exclusive jurisdiction for several areas of government expenditure. Not only has Congress invaded the province of the states with regard to domestic spending, it has increasingly taken charge of state governments by means of conditional federal grants. Congress coerces the states to do its bidding by taking money from taxpay- ers (current or future), and then offering federal funding for mandated programs. This leaves the state legislatures in the structural position of being unable to achieve their central mission—repre- senting the voters of their own states. Rather, state legislators are effectively required to do the will of Congress. This is a clear violation of the principles of a Republican form of government. Regaining true federalism is not just a matter of insisting on adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution. If freedom is to survive, we must return to the structural designs of a robust feder- alism, with a truly limited federal gov- ernment. Only the COS seeks to address this core issue. 3. There are other structural issues with the federal government that require immediate attention. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution commands that all federal laws must be made by Congress. But the Executive Branch, through both executive orders and bureaucratic regulations, makes an ever-escalating percentage of the fed- eral laws that are crippling our econ- omy. This problem is persistent regard- less of which political party controls the White House. The Supreme Court has, on approxi- mately thirty occasions, acknowledged that the only limitation on its power is the Court’s own sense of self-restraint. We must apply appropriate checks and balances to the Supreme Court. We see the State Department and many in the United States Senate increasingly enamored with the idea that interna- tional law should govern the domestic policy of the United States. Under the Supremacy Clause, all state laws and state constitutions must yield to any rat- ified international treaty. We need to limit the treaty power to the interna- tional sphere and not allow it to invade the domestic authority of the states. The chief reasons for the growth of the federal government involve misuse of the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause. Both of these need to be returned to their original meaning. We need to have a serious discussion on the issue of term limits for members of Congress and the federal judiciary. (For example, federal judges could be limited to one eight-year term without reappointment. A single term would continue to guarantee judicial inde- pendence without creating a sense of permanent judicial supremacy.) All of these issues can be effectively addressed under the language of the model COS application. None of these issues can be addressed under the BBA application. 4. The COS Project avoids legal issues presented by the BBA which will likely result in lengthy delays. At one time or another, 34 state legisla- tures have applied for a BBA conven- tion. However, 10 of these applications have since been rescinded. Moreover, there is considerable variation in the language of BBA applications. Con- sider some examples: The 2014 application from Ohio calls for a convention limited to “proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution requiring that in the absence of a national emergency the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated fed- eral revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropri- ate fiscal restraints.” On the other hand, the current Mary- land application calls for a convention to propose a specific amendment, pro- viding that “The total of all Federal  Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana 6-1-11 2-24-82 3-5-79 4-5-78 2-25-76 4-21-14 2-20-14 3-12-57 “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to that Constitution requiring that, in the absence of a national emergency . . . the total of all federal appropriations made by Congress for any fiscal year not exceed the total revenue for that fiscal year.” “for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would require that, In the absence of a national emergency, the total of all appropriations made by Congress for a fiscal year shall not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year.” Rescinded “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Federal Constitution requiring in the absence of a national emergency that the total of all Federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated Federal revenues for that ficsal[sic] year.” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the federal constitution prohibiting deficit spending except under conditions specified in such amendment.” “for the purpose of proposing of the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States: 'ARTICLE The costs of operating the Federal Government shall not exceed its income during any fiscal year, except in the event of declared war.'” “limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution requiring that, in the absence of a national emergency, the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints.” “limited to consideration and proposal of an amendment requiring that in the absence of a national emergency the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year.” Rescinded “for proposing the following article as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States: 'ARTICLE ”'SECTION 1. On or before the 15th day after the beginning of each regular session of the Congress, the President shall transmit to the Congress a budget which shall set forth his estimates of the receipts of the Government, other than trust funds, during the ensuing fiscal year under the laws then existing and his recommendations with respect to expenditures to be made from funds other than trust funds during such ensuing fiscal year, which shall not exceed such estimate of receipts. If the Congress shall authorize expenditures to be made during such ensuing fiscal year in excess of such estimated receipts, it shall not adjourn for more than 3 days at a time until action has been taken necessary to balance the budget for such ensuing fiscal year. In case of war or other grave national emergency, if the President shall so recommend, the Congress by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of each House may suspend the foregoing provisions for balancing the budget for periods, either successive or otherwise, not exceeding 1 year each.” 4 5 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes STATE DATE PASSED OPERATIVE LANGUAGE STILL PENDING State Applications for Article V Convention to Propose a Balanced Budget Amendment Continued on page 6 Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maryland Michigan 3-22-79 7-1-80 2-8-79 5-14-14 1-28-77 3-26-14 “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution to the effect that, in the absence of a national emergency, the total of all Federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated Federal revenues for that fiscal year.” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced federal budget and to make certain exceptions with respect thereto.” “for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would require that, in the absence of a national emergency, the total of all appropriations made by the Congress for a fiscal year shall not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for such fiscal year.” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for submission to the states for ratification, to require that in the absence of a national emergency the total of all federal outlays made by congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints.” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing [Article XXVII] . . . PROPOSED ARTICLE XXVII: “The total of all Federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of the estimated Federal revenues for that fiscal year, excluding any revenues derived from borrowing; and this prohibition extends to all Federal appropriations and all estimated Federal revenues, excluding any revenues derived from borrowing. The President in submitting budgetary requests and the Congress in enacting appropriation bills shall comply with this Article. If the President proclaims a national emergency, suspending the requirement that the total.of all Federal appropriations not exceed the total estimated Federal revenues for a fiscal year, excluding any revenues derived from borrowing, and two-thirds of all Members elected to each House of' the Congress so determined by Joint Resolution, the total of all Federal appropriations may exceed the total estimated Federal revenues for that fiscal year.” “limited to proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States requiring that in the absence of a national emergency, including, but not limited to, an attack by a foreign nation or terrorist organization within the United States of America, the total of all federal appropriations made by the congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints.” Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes STATE DATE PASSED OPERATIVE LANGUAGE STILL PENDING  6 7 Continued from page 5 Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico 4-29-75 7-21-83 2-8-79 2-8-79 5-16-12 2-8-79 “for the proposing of the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States: 'Article “'Section 1. Except as provided in Section 3, the Congress shall make no appropriation for any fiscal year if the resulting total of appropriations for such fiscal year would exceed the total revenues of the United States for such fiscal year. ”'Section 2. There shall be no increase in the national debt and such debt, as it exists on the date on which this article is ratified, shall be repaid during the one-hundred-year period beginning with the first fiscal year which begins after the date on, which this article is ratified. The rate of repayment shall be such that one- tenth (1/10) of such debt shall be repaid during each ten-year interval of such one-hundred- year period. “'Section 3. In time of war or national emergency, as declared by the Congress, the application of Section 1 or Section 2 of this article, or both such sections, may be suspended by a concurrent resolution which has passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by an affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the authorized membership of each such house. Such suspension shall not be effective past the two-year term of the Congress which passes such resolution, and if war or an emergency continues to exist such suspension, must be reenacted in the same manner as provided herein. ”'Section 4. This article shall apply only with respect to fiscal years which begin more than, six (6) months after the date on which this article is ratified.'” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced federal budget and to make certain exceptions with respect thereto;” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring in the absence of a national emergency that the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenue for that fiscal year.” “for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution which would require that, in the absence of a national emergency, the total of the appropriation made by the Congress for each fiscal year may not exceed the total of the estimated federal revenues for that year;” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for submission to the states for ratification, requiring, with certain exceptions, that for each fiscal year the president of the United States submit and the Congress of the United States adopt a balanced federal budget;” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the constitution requiring in the absence of a national emergency that the total of all federal appropriations made by the congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year;” Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes STATE DATE PASSED OPERATIVE LANGUAGE STILL PENDING North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Wyoming 1-29-79 2014 2-8-79 3-10-14 3-15-79 “for the exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced federal budget in the absence of a national emergency.” Rescinded “limited to proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution requiring that in the absence of a national emergency the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints;” Rescinded Rescinded “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the Federal Constitution requiring in the absence of a national emergency that the total of all Federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated Federal revenues for that fiscal year;” Rescinded Rescinded “limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that in the absence of a national emergency the total of all Federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated Federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints.” “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the federal constitution requiring in the absence of a national emergency that the total of all federal appropriations made by the congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year;” Rescinded Rescinded Rescinded Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No STATE DATE PASSED OPERATIVE LANGUAGE STILL PENDING  (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject  This educational conflict over Common Core, an outrage to parents across the nation, reveals that we’ve drifted far off course. We are often reminded that Common Core is a “voluntary” program, and that states still retain complete control over their public educational curriculum. But the truth is, until the states wrest control over education from the clutches of the federal government, there will be grave consequences for states that refuse to ac- quiesce. In 2014, for instance, the U.S. Department of Education denied Oklahoma’s request for a waiver from No Child Left Behind—a thinly veiled, politically motivated punish- ment for the state’s rejection of the “volun- tary” Common Core program. State legislators who believe that the best decisions about public education are the ones made closest to home should plan and implement a meaningful, strategic re- sponse to this kind of federal bullying. But what does that look like? A lawsuit against the feds would be an up- hill battle. At most, it could win on a nar- row, procedural basis. Alternatively, the states could use this moment to take a his- toric step toward dismantling the basis for illicit federal power grabs. The Constitution’s Framers believed that having the right structure for decision- making was essential for the preservation of liberty. They had learned this lesson in the crucible of a very real conflict. Our Founders had refused to pay the taxes imposed by Parliament, insisting upon their rights under British law to be subject only to taxes imposed by their own elected representatives. They stood up for the principle of self-government — and the victory they won stands as the crowning achievement of that generation. Today, this educational conflict over Common Core, an outrage to parents across the nation, reveals that we’ve drifted far off course. The principle of “enumerated powers” means that the federal government has no authority to dictate the educational policy of any state, directly or indirectly, because it wasn’t given this power under the Constitution. Yet states like Okla- homa are engaged in this battle because of the de facto collusion between the Supreme Court and Congress to gradu- ally increase federal power. While the Supreme Court has recognized that the federal government can’t directly regulate education, the court also has ruled that Congress’ power to tax and spend under the General Welfare Clause is, for most practical purposes, unlimited. Congress is therefore free to take money from a state’s taxpayers, then offer it Let’s Provide Our Children Common Sense, Not Common Core Michael P. Farris, JD, LLM, Convention of States Action — Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies Continued to back page  Continued from front page (540) 441- 7 22 7 | C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM | Facebook.com/Conven tionOfStates | Twitter.com/COSproject back—on the condition that the state gives Congress control of its schools. The Common Core battle also raises the fundamental issue of who makes federal law. The Founders thought they’d settled the question, declaring in Article I, Sec- tion 1 that all federal laws must be made by Congress. Yet states like Oklahoma are punished for challenging mere administrative decisions of the Obama administration. What can you do? Article V of the Constitution gives state legislatures the means to unilaterally pro- pose amendments to the Constitution that can remedy these modern perver- sions of our federal system. The legislatures of Georgia, Florida, Alaska, and Alabama have already passed resolutions calling for a Convention of States under Article V, for the express pur- pose of proposing amendments to rein in a runaway federal government. This kind of specific, systemic correction is needed to repair the damaged structures of the Constitution and restore limitations on federal power. You can help these other states in leading the way to real reform. When 34 states call for an amendments convention to re- strain the federal government, we will have our only realistic opportunity to re- ject not only Common Core, but all forms of illicit federal mandates. Ultimately, this fight isn’t merely about ed- ucation policy. It’s about the principle of self-government that is the real common core of America. This fight isn’t merely about education policy. It’s about the principle of self-government that is the real common core of America.  On September 11, 2014, some of our nation’s finest legal minds convened to consider arguments for and against the use of Article V to restrain federal power. These experts specifically rejected the argument that a Convention of States is likely to be misused or improperly controlled by Congress, concluding instead that the mechanism provided by the Founders is safe. Moreover, they shared the conviction that Article V provides the only constitutionally effective means to restore our federal system. The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement, which is reproduced here. The names and biographical information of the endorsers, who have formed a “Legal Board of Reference” for the Convention of States Project, are listed below the Statement. The Constitution’s Framers foresaw a day when the federal government would exceed and abuse its enumerated powers, thus placing our liberty at risk. George Mason was instrumental in fashioning a mechanism by which “we the people” could defend our freedom— the ultimate check on federal power contained in Article V of the Constitution. Article V provides the states with the opportunity to propose constitutional amendments through a process called a Convention of States. This process is controlled by the states from beginning to end on all substantive matters. A Convention of States is convened when 34 state legislatures pass resolutions (applications) on an agreed topic or set of topics. The Convention is limited to considering amendments on these specified topics. While some have expressed fears that a Convention of States might be misused or improperly controlled by Congress, it is our considered judgment that the checks and balances in the Constitution are more than sufficient to ensure the integrity of the process. The Convention of States mechanism is safe, and it is the only constitutionally effective means available to do what is so essential for our nation—restoring robust federalism with genuine checks on the power of the federal government. We share the Founders’ conviction that proper decision-making structures are essential to preserve liberty. We believe that the problems facing our nation require several structural limitations on the exercise of federal power. While fiscal restraints are essential, we believe the most effective course is to pursue reasonable limitations, fully in line with the vision of our Founders, on the federal government. Accordingly, I endorse the Convention of States Project, which calls for an Article V Convention for “the sole purpose of 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 for members of Congress.” I hereby agree to serve on the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project. Signed, Randy E. Barnett * Charles J. Cooper * John C. Eastman * Michael P. Farris * Robert P. George * C. Boyden Gray * Mark Levin * Nelson Lund Andrew McCarthy * Mark Meckler * Mat Staver Continued to back page *Original signers of The Jefferson Statement THE JEFFERSON STATEMENT  (540) 441-7227 COSA ction.com Randy E. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he directs the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he represented the National Federation of Independent Business in its constitutional chal- lenge to the Affordable Care Act. Professor Barnett has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, and Northwestern. Charles J. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. He has over 35 years of legal experience in gov- ernment and private practice, with several appearances before the United States Supreme Court. Shortly after serving as law clerk to Justice William H. Rehnquist, Mr. Cooper joined the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1981. In 1985 President Reagan appointed Mr. Cooper to the position of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute. Prior to joining the Fowler School of Law faculty in August 1999, he served as a law clerk with Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Eastman served as the Director of Congressional & Public Affairs at the United States Commission on Civil Rights during the Reagan administration. Michael P. Farris , head of the Convention of States Project, is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the found- ing president of both organizations. During his ca- reer as a constitutional appellate litigator, he has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of thirteen states. Mr. Farris has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over thirty years and is widely respected for his leadership in the de- fense of homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. Robert P. George h o l d s Princeton’s celebrated McCor- mick Chair in Jurisprudence and is the founding director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He is chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and has served as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Professor George is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. C. Boyden Gray is the founding partner of Boyden Gray & Associates, in Washington, D.C. Prior to founding his law firm, Ambassador Gray served as Legal Counsel to Vice President Bush (1981–1989) and as White House Counsel in the administration of President George H.W. Bush (1989–1993). Mr. Gray also served as counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief during the Reagan Administration. Following his service in the White House, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and U.S. Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy. Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent constitutional lawyers and the author of several New York Times bestselling books in- cluding Men in Black (2007), Liberty and Tyranny (2010), Ameritopia (2012) and The Liberty Amendments (2013). Mr. Levin has served as a top advisor to sev- eral members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet—including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States, Edwin Meese. Nelson Lund is University Professor at George Mason University School of Law. He holds a doctorate in political sci- ence from Harvard and a law de- gree from the University of Chicago. After clerking for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, he served in the White House as Associate Counsel to President George H.W. Bush. He also served on Virginia Governor George Allen’s Advisory Council on Self-Determination and Federalism, and on the Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by President Jimmy Carter and Secretary James A. Baker III. Andrew McCarthy is a best- selling author, a Senior Fellow at National Review Institute, and a contributing editor at National Review. Mr. McCarthy is a for- mer Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, best known for leading the prosecu- tion against the various terrorists in New York City. He has also served as an advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mark Meckler is President of Citizens for Self-Governance, the parent organization of the Convention of States Project. Mr. Meckler is one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists. After he co-founded and served as the National Coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, he founded Citizens for Self-Governance in 2012 to bring the concept of “self-governance” back to American government. This grassroots initiative expands and supports the ever-growing, bipartisan self-gover- nance movement. Mat Staver is the Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and also serves as Vice President of Liberty University, Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law, and Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. LEGAL BOARD OF REFERENCE Each of the following individuals has signed onto The Jefferson Statement, endorsing the Convention of States Project, and serves as a legal advisor to the Project:  Our constitutional rights, especially our Sec- ond Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are in peril. With every tragic violent crime, liberals renew their demands for Congress and state legislatures to enact so- called “commonsense gun control” meas- ures designed to chip away at our individual constitutional right to armed self defense. Indeed, were it not for the determination and sheer political muscle of the National Rifle Association, Senator Feinstein’s 2013 bill to outlaw so-called “assault weapons” and other firearms might well have passed. But the most potent threat facing the Second Amendment comes not from Congress, but from the Supreme Court. Four justices of the Supreme Court do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individ- ual right to keep and bear arms. They be- lieve that Congress and state legislatures are free not only to restrict firearms owner- ship by law-abiding Americans, but to ban firearms altogether. If the Liberals get one more vote on the Supreme Court, the Sec- ond Amendment will be no more. Constitutional law has been the dominant focus of my practice for most of my career as a lawyer, first in the Justice Department as President Reagan’s chief constitutional lawyer and the chairman of the President’s Working Group on Federalism, and since then as a constitutional litigator in private practice. For almost three decades, I have represented dozens of states and many other clients in constitutional cases, including many Second Amendment cases. In 2001, for example, I argued the first federal ap- pellate case to hold that the Second Amend- ment guarantees every law-abiding respon- sible adult citizen an individual right to keep and bear arms. And in 2013 I testified before the Senate in opposition to Senator Fein- stein’s anti-gun bill, arguing that it would violate the Second Amendment. So I am not accustomed to being accused of supporting a scheme that would “put our Second Amendment rights on the chopping block.” This charge is being hurled by a small gun- rights group against me and many other con- stitutional conservatives because we have urged the states to use their sovereign power under Article V of the Constitution to call for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments designed to rein in the federal government’s power. The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V conven- tion of the states, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does. The federal government’s unrelenting encroachment upon the sovereign rights of Continued on back page An Open Letter Concerning The Second Amendment and The Convention of States Project From Charles J. Cooper Long Time Constitutional Law Litigator for the NRA Our constitutional rights, especially our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are in peril. 22  the states and the individual rights of citi- zens, and the Supreme Court’s failure to prevent it, have led me to join the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project. The Project’s mission is to urge 34 state legislatures to call for an Article V convention limited to proposing constitutional amendments that “impose fis- cal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.” I am joined in this effort by many well-known constitutional conserva- tives, including Mark Levin, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert George, Michael Farris, Mark Meckler, Professor Robert Natelson, Andrew McCarthy, Pro- fessor John Eastman, Ambassador Boyden Gray, and Professor Nelson Lund. All of us have carefully studied the original meaning of Article V, and not one of us would sup- port an Article V convention if we believed it would pose a significant threat to our Second Amendment rights or any of our constitutional freedoms. To the contrary, our mission is to reclaim our democratic and individual freedoms from an overreach- ing federal government. The Framers of our Constitution carefully limited the federal government’s powers by specifically enumerating those powers in Article I, and the states promptly ensured that the Constitution would expressly protect the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” by adopting the Second Amendment. But the Framers understood human nature, and they could foresee a day when the federal government would yield to the “encroaching spirit of power,” as James Madison put in the Federalist Papers, and would invade the sovereign domain of the states and infringe the rights of the citizens. The Framers also knew that the states would be powerless to remedy the federal govern- ment’s encroachments if the process of amending the Constitution could be initiated only by Congress; as Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, “the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority” it claims. So the Framers wisely equipped the states with the means of reclaiming their sovereign powers and protecting the rights of their citizens, even in the face of con- gressional opposition. Article V vests the states with unilateral power to convene for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments and to control the amending process from beginning to end on all sub- stantive matters. The day foreseen by the Framers – the day when the federal government far exceeded the limits of its enumerated powers – arrived many years ago. The Framers took care in Article V to equip the people, acting through their state legislatures, with the power to put a stop to it. It is high time they used it. Charles J. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. Named by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington, he has over 35 years of legal experience in government and private practice, with several appearances before the United States Supreme Court and scores of other successful cases on both the trial and appellate levels. Continued from front page The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V convention of the states, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does. Website: COSAction.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 Facebook.com/COSAction Twitter: @COSAction PLEASE ACT NOW Visit COSAction.com to learn more and sign the petition calling for a Convention Of States!  For ten years, Senator Tom Coburn served in the United States Senate as a voice for limited government and the values of Oklahomans. He has been described as one of the most sought after members on legislative strategy and thought. And now, he’s bringing those talents to the Conven- tion of States Project. Since joining Convention of States as Senior Advisor, Coburn has been traveling across the nation, sharing his vision with state legislators about why using Article V calling for a convention of the states is cru- cial for our nation at this time. In his recent testimony to the Texas House Federalism Committee, Coburn said, “[As a doctor], I know you don’t solve problems by treating the symptoms; you treat the disease. Our country has a disease.” Article V, he said, allows us to get past the symp- toms and treat the structural problems that threaten our future. Coburn brings his political savvy and gravitas alongside the hundreds of thousands of volunteers working in all fifty states, and Convention of States citizen activists in 97% of all state legislative districts, not to mention the endorsements of notable public figures like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Bobby Jindal, Colonel Allen West, Sarah Palin and many others. It’s not just his general political knowledge that makes him an asset to this project. “The federal government now reaches into every aspect of our lives in ways the Founders never imagined nor intended…[Americans] don’t need politicians, and unaccountable federal bureaucrats and administrators telling them how to live their lives.” Continued on back page Convention of States Senior Advisor: Senator Tom Coburn (Ret.) “After many years in Washington, one of the reasons I left was because I no longer believe that Washington is capable of reining itself in … the only avenue to change it is the one given to us by our Founders in the Constitution — an Article V Convention of States, where the people, not the politicians, are in charge.”  Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject His experience as Chairman of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee means that he knows exactly where our specific problems lie. “What most people don’t realize is that every single piece of government waste has a constituency,” says Coburn, “And most politicians don’t want to do anything to jeopardize their future elections. So they remain unresolved election cycle after election cycle, and the American people are stuck with the consequences. A Con- vention of States, on the other hand, can impose those restraints from the outside and secure our financial future.” Knowing that staying in power for many election cycles is a detriment to effective statesmanship, Senator Coburn has in- sisted on term-limiting himself in every office he has held. He says, “Our Founders never intended that there be a ruling class of career politicians. When members of Congress stay in Washington election after election, they become less concerned about working for their constituents and more concerned about keeping their power.” Imposing fiscal restraints and term limits are two of the three topics proposed by a Convention of States. The third—and most important— is the call to limit the power and ju- risdiction of the federal government. Coburn says, “The federal government now reaches into every aspect of our lives in ways the Founders never imagined nor intended. The people of this country are fully capable of governing themselves. They don’t need politicians, and unac- countable federal bureaucrats and admin- istrators telling them how to live their lives and run their businesses.” He continues, “This is the reason that the Convention of States was included in the Constitution in the first place. At the Con- stitutional Convention, George Mason, knowing that no amendments of the proper kind would ever be proposed from a tyran- nical federal government, suggested that the states have a method by which they could propose those necessary amend- ments. His suggestion—the Convention of States—was met with no debate and unan- imously agreed upon. Our Framers—in- cluding George Washington, James Madi- son, and Alexander Hamilton—all agreed that the American people should be able to take control of their country and govern themselves.” Without a doubt, Coburn believes the time for a Convention of States is now. “This is a movement whose time has come. Although I am a proud conservative, this is not a partisan issue. Politicians and bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power — no matter who is elected. Only through a Convention of States may the clear, unfettered voice of the people be heard and overreaching government be reined in. It’s time to return government to the people and realize again our Founders’ vision for self-governance.” Continued from front page George Mason Memorial, National Mall, DC “George Mason, knowing that no amendments of the proper kind would ever be proposed from a tyrannical federal government, suggested that the states have a method by which they could propose those necessary amendments.”  For nearly two decades, Jim DeMint made a name for himself in Washington fighting for freedom, limited govern- ment, and fiscal responsibility. Like for- mer Senator Tom Coburn, DeMint was known throughout our nation’s capital for his refusal to become just another Washington insider. He spoke up for the will of the people and the good of the nation, no matter how much oppo- sition he faced from the statist “elite” who call the shots in D.C. DeMint’s extensive experience in Washington has given him firsthand knowledge of the near-impossibility of making any significant changes from within the federal government. “I’ve tried to rein in Washington from inside the Senate,” DeMint said. “I’ve tried to elect good conservatives with the Senate Conservatives Fund. And as the President of the Heritage Foundation, I’ve worked to create and promote good conservative policy. “While all these things are important, the nation cannot be saved from within Washington, D.C. Only the people in the states can save the country, through a Convention of States that proposes constitutional amendments to fortify restrictions on federal power.” DeMint served in the U.S. House of Representatives for South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District from 1999–2005. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and served as one of South Carolina’s senators until he re- signed in 2012 to become President of the Heritage Foundation. With 18 years of political experience working both in- side and outside Congress, DeMint of- fers a wealth of wisdom and insight to Continued on back page Convention of States Project Senior Advisor: Senator Jim DeMint “Americans are sick and tired of the doubletalk coming out of Washington. So am I. After serving in the House, the Senate, and as President of the Heritage Foundation, I’ve finally realized the most important truth of our time: Washington, D.C., will never fix itself. Convention of States is the only solution.” — Jim DeMint  COSA CTION . COM E-mail: [email protected] (540) 441- 7 22 7 Facebook.com/COSAction Twitter.com/COSProject the volunteer grassroots armies that are reaching every state legislature in the country with the Convention of States Project’s message: We CAN take our power back. “Once I realized that Washington in- siders will never truly return decision- making power to the people and the states, I began to search for another way to rein in the federal government,” DeMint said. “When I learned about Article V and the Convention of States Project, I knew I had to get involved.” DeMint brings with him more than just legislative experience; he knows how to fight through opposition and make the tough calls for the benefit of the country. In 2009, DeMint was one of only two Senators who voted against Hillary Clinton’s appointment to Secretary of State. In 2010, he introduced an Oba- macare repeal as well as a bill that would have required congressional ap- proval of any major regulatory change made by a federal agency. While his col- leagues in Congress were working to get reelected, DeMint faithfully fought to uphold his pledge to defend the Con- stitution and the will of the people. “I’ve spent my career fighting against the same radical statist coalition that has aligned itself against the Convention of States Project,” DeMint said. “I’m ex- cited to get outside the beltway and work with the grassroots to continue that fight. Through Article V, the people and the states have more power than I ever did in D.C. I can’t wait to come alongside the COS state teams, offer my support, and watch what these citizen activists can accomplish.” To those few sincere Americans who still fear the Article V process, DeMint had this to say: “I understand there are those who be- lieve electing more ‘good’ leaders to D.C. will solve our nation’s problems. Take it from me – it won’t. The few who fight for the people will always be overwhelmed by the deep state bureau- crats, the statist congressmen, and the activist judges. “Only a Convention of States can truly limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and I’m thrilled to be a small part of this his- toric movement.” Continued from front page To those few sincere Americans who still fear the Article V process, DeMint had this to say: “I understand there are those who believe electing more ‘good’ leaders to D.C. will solve our nation’s problems. Take it from me – it won’t. The few who fight for the people will always be overwhelmed by the deep state bureaucrats, the statist congressmen, and the activist judges.”  “I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in call- ing for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our broken Constitution,” Abbott said, bringing a room of Texas policymakers to their feet in support of the Convention of States resolution. Governor Abbott has demonstrated tremen- dous courage and leadership in placing his support firmly behind Convention of States, which gives state lawmakers a powerful tool to fight back against an overbearing federal government. Under the Convention of States resolu- tion, commissioners to the convention can discuss proposals for constitutional reforms on three topics: fiscal restraints on the federal government, term limits on federal officials, and limits on the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Abbott's Texas Plan fits nicely within this framework. Nearly 100 pages long with more than 350 footnotes, the Texas Plan is a comprehensive look at the need for an Article V Convention of States. “The President changes laws with a pen. Congress sees no need to root their laws in constitutional principles. The judiciary rewrites laws and freely amends the Con- stitution,” said Abbott, emphasizing that Article V is the constitutional mechanism the states can utilize to fix the cracks in the system. Moreover, Governor Abbott’s support is unique in that he had made Convention of States the primary agenda item of his administration. In fact, the Texas Plan was specifically designed to fit within— and only within—the Convention of States resolution! “The Texas Plan does what so desperately needs to be done—it puts teeth into the Tenth Amendment,” Abbott said. “That is the best way to restore the states and the people as guardians of our Constitution.” The Texas Plan harkens back to James Madison’s Virginia Plan, which largely defined the agenda of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Likewise, Abbott’s plan puts forward nine bold solutions for the Convention of States commissioners to consider—solutions that would systematically restore power to the people and to the states. “The Founders gave us the tool to chart our own destiny,” said Abbott. “That tool is Article V of the United States Constitution. The Framers included it, be- cause they knew that citizens are the ulti- mate defense against an overreaching fed- eral government.” Continued on back page Governor Greg Abbott Texas Governor Abbott Supports Convention of States In one bold declaration, Texas Governor Greg Abbott both shocked the political world and energized a growing movement to restore the rule of law in America. “I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our broken Constitution,” Abbott said, bringing a room of Texas policymakers to their feet in support of the Convention of States resolution.  By taking this historic step, Governor Abbott has demonstrated that he is committed to helping the states call an Article V Convention of States to propose meaningful constitutional reforms that would dramatically expand liberty and prosperity for all Americans. The Texas Plan includes proposals that would: • Permit two-thirds of the states to collectively overturn a federal law, regulation, or Supreme Court ruling • Restore the Commerce Clause to its original intent • Require Congress to balance the federal budget • Require a supermajority of the Supreme Court to override any democratically enacted law • Permit state officials to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds • Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state and federal law. In his speech, Governor Abbott recalled the time when Franklin was asked what kind of government the Framers had proposed at the Philadelphia Convention. “A republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin famously declared. “Let us heed the advice of our Founders,” Abbott said. “If we are going to keep the republic that Franklin said we got — if we are going to fight for, protect, and hand onto the next generation the freedom that Reagan spoke of—then we the people have to the take the lead to restore the rule of law in the United States.” Convention of States is developing the largest grassroots army in the nation. We recently surpassed 1.3 million supporters, with volunteer leadership in all 50 states. Convention of States allows citizens to engage in the only constitutional solution to restore the balance of power and return America to its founding principles. “Franklin knew that if the three branches of government strayed, there was a fourth group to rein them in,” Abbott said. “They identified that fourth group in the first three words of the United States Consti- tution—We the People.” With Governor Abbott’s steadfast support, we are confident that Convention of States will be a success. “Every generation of Americans must face Franklin’s challenge,” Abbott said. “Do we have the will to keep our republic?” Before he became the 48 th Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott distinguished himself as the longest-serving Attorney General in Texas history and was also a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court. His sharp legal mind and experience in litigating states’ rights makes his support for Convention of States all the more powerful. Continued from front page Governor Abbott has demonstrated that he is committed to helping the states call an Article V Convention of States to propose meaningful constitutional reforms that would dramatically expand liberty and prosperity for all Americans. Website: COSAction.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 Facebook.com/COSAction Twitter: @COSAction PLEASE ACT NOW Visit COSAction.com to learn more and sign the petition calling for a Convention of States!  “Using the Constitution to Save the Constitution.” The Problem Our nation is in peril. The public widely believes that America is headed in the wrong direction. They believe the future prospects are troubling, not only for this generation but for generations to come. The monstrous fed- eral debt, the power grabs of the federal courts, and the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government could ultimately result in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The Solution Our current situation is precisely what the Founders feared. They knew the federal government might one day become drunk with power, so they gave us a solution in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Article V says that upon successful ‘application’ by 34 states, the states can convene a Convention of States to propose constitutional amendments. Under the Convention of States Project resolution, these amendments would be limited to imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power of the federal government, and mandating term limits. This would allow proposed amendments that limit executive orders, federal spending and taxation, and terms of office for Congress and the Supreme Court. What kind of amendments would you propose? These amendments only become part of the Constitution after they are ratified by 38 states, rendering the “runaway convention” objection virtually unthinkable. When 38 states agree on something, it’s not a runaway — it’s a mandate! The Strategy Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations: 1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), addresses only one of a number of issues. The Convention of States application allows for multiple amendments to be considered for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. This will allow for the states to provide a solution as big as the problem in D.C. 2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a grassroots organization in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. But only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed. Join Us The movement is spreading. Millions of Americans along with thought leaders and members of the media are joining the Convention of States Project as endorsers, supporters, and volunteers. PLEASE ACT NOW! Visit COSAction.com to learn more and sign the petition calling for a Convention of States! “States rise up against Washington” “Convention of States Trying to Unleash Power of Citizenry” “I have whole- heartedly endorsed the Convention of States Project.” “State-led push to force convention to amend Constitution gains steam, with high-profile Republican support” “Coburn: A Convention of States can restore our Constitution” “U. S. Term Limits Endorses the Convention of States Project”  “I’m a big supporter of [a Convention of States]. I like what you’re doing. I hope you get it accomplished.” Sean Hannity (540) 441- 7 22 7 | COSAction.com | Facebook.com/COSAction “Thank goodness the founders had the wisdom to provide us with Article V of the Constitution. I support the efforts to gather a constitutional Convention of States consistent with Article V and honoring the 10 th Amendment.” Colonel Allen West “There is not enough politic al will in Washington to fix the real p roblems facing the country. It’s time for the people to take back their co untry. The plan put forth by Conventio n of States is a great way to do just that by using the proce ss the Founders gave us for reining in the federal gover nment.” Senator Tom Coburn Endorsements “We need ter m limits and a balanced bud get amendme nt, and Congress is n ever going to give it to us. That's wh y I support an Article V Convention o f States.” Senator Marc o Rubio “We can, and we must scale back the monstrosity that our federal government has become. For this reason, I support the Convention of States project efforts to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to restrain the size of the federal government.” Governor Bobby Jindal “[Our nation’s] prob lems are not going to be solved in Was hington D.C.… We’ve got to take th e power back. I can’t think of a bett er way of doing it [than Convention of States], because Washington is not g oing to give up pow er.” Senator Ron Johns on “I have reviewed their plan and it is both innovative and realistic. I urge you to join me in supporting the Convention of States Project .” Mike Huckabee “I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our broken Constitution.” Governor Greg Abbott Mark Levin When asked if he endorsed Convention of States, Ben Car son commented, “Very much so… our founders knew that there would probably come a time w hen you might have to make some adjustments to the Constitutio n.” “I have whole-heartedly endorsed the Convention of States Project. I serve on its Legal Board of Reference because they propose a solution as big as the problem.” Ben Carson  Levin’s book on Article V, The Liberty Amendments , has been a #1 New York Times bestseller and is credited with kicking off the movement to call a Convention of States for proposing amend- ments to the Constitution. Yet when it comes to his specific endorsement of an Article V project, Levin has thrown his support fully behind the Convention of States Project and our three-pronged call for fiscal restraints, limitations on the power and scope of Washington, and term limits on fed- eral officials. Levin’s endorsement came during his impassioned speech to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s 2014 State & Nation Policy Summit. In that speech, he explained why a convention surrounding a single amendment simply is too small of a solution, saying, “When they met in Philadelphia they didn’t just sit there and say, ‘Hey, let’s talk about a balanced budget.’ They said, ‘Let’s talk about liberty. What kind of government do we want to live under?’ And that’s what this Conven- tion of the States is all about.” Although many organizations are calling for term limits or a balanced budget, Con- vention of States is the only Article V res- olution calling for both term limits and fiscal restraints. More importantly, we are targeting the deeper issue — the continual growth of Washington’s overreach — by imposing limits on the power and juris- diction of the federal government. Levin said, “Why are we solely focused on a balanced budget amendment when the Supreme Court is a runaway court? Why are we solely focused on a balanced budget amendment when we have other issues that are problematic like the entrenched ruling class in the bureaucracy? If you’re going to go through the process, don’t be myopic…don’t get caught up in one matter. This is a structural, systemic issue… “We’re trying to restore the republic and save what’s left of the Constitution. I say we can coalesce a group around saving the Republic.” “When [the Framers] met in Philadelphia … they said, ‘Let’s talk about liberty. What kind of government do we want to live under?’ And that’s what this Convention of the States is all about.” Continued on back page TAKE YOUR POWER BACK! “I have whole-heartedly endorsed the Convention of States Project,” says constitutional scholar Mark Levin. “I serve on its Legal Board of Reference because they propose a solution as big as the problem.” MARK LEVIN  Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject And for those in favor of limited govern- ment, the Republic does, indeed, need to be saved. Recent Supreme Court rulings have advanced an agenda of judicial ac- tivism. However, Levin noted that the problem of federal expansion is deeper than that. He asked: “Today the federal government is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, grantor, prop- erty owner, tenant, insurer, healthcare provider, and pension guarantor. Does that sound like limited government to you?” Many state legislators fear that a Conven- tion of States will not be able to be con- trolled and will “runaway,” to which ar- gument Levin gave a sharp response: “Do you realize there can never be a runaway convention, never, ever? It’s impossible! Since three-fourths of the states must ratify whatever is proposed by the delegates sent by two-thirds of the states…All you do is you propose specific amendments, and the states consider them or reject them. Congress does this, it’s done it before. Now you do it, it’s your turn, that’s why it’s in there.” Not only has Levin fought against the notion of a runaway convention, he has spoken out on the air against legislators who have held up the Convention of States application from going to the floor for a vote: “If we get a full vote in these states, we win. We win. But you see, these Senate presidents, and some of these Speakers, are part of the problem, wherever they are. They like big government…They pretend they’re originalists. They’re not.” Levin was specifically addressing Senator Craig Estes (R) of TX, Senator Andy Biggs (R) of AZ, and Senator John Alario, Jr. (R) of LA. The Convention of States movement is filled with constitutional originalists who believe that this is the only way to curtail Washington’s intrusion into our lives. Colonel Allen West, Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and others have joined Levin as full-fledged endorsers of this project. “We’re not some cult over here,” Levin said, “We’re the majority. We’re not some extreme, hard-right group over here, we’re constitutionalists. We’re not some wackos over here…we embrace the American Heritage. We are the ones trying to lead an effort to save what's left of this country.” Levin reminded legislators not only of their ability, but also their duty, to call a Convention of States. “I want you to understand that you as individuals… have a capacity as state representatives and state senators — you alone, not your governors, not congressmen, not senators, not the president, not the court — but you have it within your- selves, and it ought to be your number one priority when you leave here, to help restore this republic and give us our constitution back.” Continued from front page “Today the federal government is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, healthcare provider, and pension guarantor. Does that sound like limited government to you?”  Levin’s book on Article V, The Liberty Amendments , has been a #1 New York Times bestseller and is credited with kicking off the movement to call a Convention of States for proposing amend- ments to the Constitution. Yet when it comes to his specific endorsement of an Article V project, Levin has thrown his support fully behind the Convention of States Project and our three-pronged call for fiscal restraints, limitations on the power and scope of Washington, and term limits on fed- eral officials. Levin’s endorsement came during his impassioned speech to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s 2014 State & Nation Policy Summit. In that speech, he explained why a convention surrounding a single amendment simply is too small of a solution, saying, “When they met in Philadelphia they didn’t just sit there and say, ‘Hey, let’s talk about a balanced budget.’ They said, ‘Let’s talk about liberty. What kind of government do we want to live under?’ And that’s what this Conven- tion of the States is all about.” Although many organizations are calling for term limits or a balanced budget, Con- vention of States is the only Article V res- olution calling for both term limits and fiscal restraints. More importantly, we are targeting the deeper issue — the continual growth of Washington’s overreach — by imposing limits on the power and juris- diction of the federal government. Levin said, “Why are we solely focused on a balanced budget amendment when the Supreme Court is a runaway court? Why are we solely focused on a balanced budget amendment when we have other issues that are problematic like the entrenched ruling class in the bureaucracy? If you’re going to go through the process, don’t be myopic…don’t get caught up in one matter. This is a structural, systemic issue… “We’re trying to restore the republic and save what’s left of the Constitution. I say we can coalesce a group around saving the Republic.” “When [the Framers] met in Philadelphia … they said, ‘Let’s talk about liberty. What kind of government do we want to live under?’ And that’s what this Convention of the States is all about.” Continued on back page TAKE YOUR POWER BACK! “I have whole-heartedly endorsed the Convention of States Project,” says constitutional scholar Mark Levin. “I serve on its Legal Board of Reference because they propose a solution as big as the problem.” MARK LEVIN  Website: ConventionOfStates.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (540) 441-7227 www.Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates Twitter: @COSProject And for those in favor of limited govern- ment, the Republic does, indeed, need to be saved. Recent Supreme Court rulings have advanced an agenda of judicial ac- tivism. However, Levin noted that the problem of federal expansion is deeper than that. He asked: “Today the federal government is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, grantor, prop- erty owner, tenant, insurer, healthcare provider, and pension guarantor. Does that sound like limited government to you?” Many state legislators fear that a Conven- tion of States will not be able to be con- trolled and will “runaway,” to which ar- gument Levin gave a sharp response: “Do you realize there can never be a runaway convention, never, ever? It’s impossible! Since three-fourths of the states must ratify whatever is proposed by the delegates sent by two-thirds of the states…All you do is you propose specific amendments, and the states consider them or reject them. Congress does this, it’s done it before. Now you do it, it’s your turn, that’s why it’s in there.” Not only has Levin fought against the notion of a runaway convention, he has spoken out on the air against legislators who have held up the Convention of States application from going to the floor for a vote: “If we get a full vote in these states, we win. We win. But you see, these Senate presidents, and some of these Speakers, are part of the problem, wherever they are. They like big government…They pretend they’re originalists. They’re not.” Levin was specifically addressing Senator Craig Estes (R) of TX, Senator Andy Biggs (R) of AZ, and Senator John Alario, Jr. (R) of LA. The Convention of States movement is filled with constitutional originalists who believe that this is the only way to curtail Washington’s intrusion into our lives. Colonel Allen West, Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and others have joined Levin as full-fledged endorsers of this project. “We’re not some cult over here,” Levin said, “We’re the majority. We’re not some extreme, hard-right group over here, we’re constitutionalists. We’re not some wackos over here…we embrace the American Heritage. We are the ones trying to lead an effort to save what's left of this country.” Levin reminded legislators not only of their ability, but also their duty, to call a Convention of States. “I want you to understand that you as individuals… have a capacity as state representatives and state senators — you alone, not your governors, not congressmen, not senators, not the president, not the court — but you have it within your- selves, and it ought to be your number one priority when you leave here, to help restore this republic and give us our constitution back.” Continued from front page “Today the federal government is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, healthcare provider, and pension guarantor. Does that sound like limited government to you?”  COSACTON.COM  NOW IT’S TIME TO DRAIN THE SWAMP OURSELVES “What’s the right fight when it seems like there are just so many fights? I want you to focus on one thing…If you are serious about saving the nation, this is the best way to do it.” For more than twenty years, Sean Hannity has filled the radio airwaves and Fox News channel with conservative news and commentary. Now, as a prominent and influential figure, he has endorsed Convention of States. Hannity supported President Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. when the President said, “today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.” However, Hannity points out that the swamp is frankly too deep for the President to drain alone. “We know about the DC Swamp and the Deep State. We know it is too deep to be drained from the inside…it’s not going to happen. President Trump is doing his best, but the DC monsters and the swamp are fighting against everything he does everyday. They want to destroy him. What can we do to help? What’s the right fight when it seems like there are just so many fights?” Hannity has been in the fight a long time, seeing promises broken time and time again by corrupt politicians that only want to keep themselves in office while lining their pockets. He has come to see that Washington is fundamentally broken. “The massive, budget- busting spending bill that passed proves that DC will NEVER reform itself. If Republicans in Congress and the Presidency can’t “The solution is in our Constitution. We can call a Convention of States to restrain the size, scope, power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” Sean Hannity and Convention of States President Mark Meckler Photo: National Archives  conventionofstates.com [email protected] (540) 441-7227 facebook.com/conventionofstates twitter.com/COSProject control our deficit spending…then who can? We the People actually can!” When Sean discovered the Convention of States movement, he knew he found the right solution for the corruption and irresponsibility in Washington. Through a little known clause in Article V of the Constitution, states can pass resolutions to call a convention 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 for members of Congress. “The solution is in our Constitution. We can call a Convention of States to restrain the size, scope, power and jurisdiction of the federal government. That includes stopping the madness of borrowing and spending… and mortgaging our kids’ and grandkids’ future. We don’t need the approval of anyone in Washington or the federal government to approve it. Congress and the courts can’t stop us.” “The reality is that we can and we must take power back. We the People have constitutional authority - we just have to use it. We have the power of the Convention of States.” While electing good people to office is important, Hannity emphasizes that this fight requires a more proactive approach if we want to fix the problems in Washington D.C. permanently. “We have some good people trying to fight with us, but don’t sit around and complain.” “President Trump can’t do it alone. And Congress won’t do it. We can drain the swamp together.” “If you’re serious about making a huge impact on the country in a positive way, it’s through a Convention of States.” “How much clearer does it have to get that the losers in D.C. will never, ever fix anything? They are bankrupting the country, and they just don’t care. So it’s up to us.” Gage Skidmore CC-BY-SA-3.0 “We don’t need the approval of anyone in Washington or the federal government to approve a Convention of States. Congress and the courts can’t stop us.” —- ====== Document Outline ====== * Examples_Grassroots Notebook * Articles * C3_Only_COS_Blaze Dunaway * C3_Only_COS_CanWeTrustConstitution-Farris * C3_Only_COS_Sim_Executive Summaryable * C3-1_COS_JeffersonStatement * C3-2_COS_Cooper-Flyer * C3-3_COS_CoburnFlyer * C3-4_COS_JimDeMint * C3-5_COS_Abbott Flyer * C3-6_COS_Endorsement Flyer * C3-7_COS_ModelApp * C4_Only_COS_Action_Handbook * 10-Surge_COS-FinalConstitutionalOption * 11-Surge_COS-BattleOverCoal-Article * 12-Surge_COS-ArticleVSolution-AbsurdityofInaction * 13-Surge_COS-FiveMyths-Article * 14-Surge_COS-ArticleVConvention * 15-Surge_COS-TimetoEvictSquatters * 16-Surve_COS-ImplementTenthAmendment * 17-Surge_COS-StateBudgetChallenges * 18-Surge_COS-DemystifyingDustyTool * 19-Surge_COS-CorruptingMoneyInPolitics * 1-Surge_COS-SolutionAsBigAsProblem * 20-Surge_COS-NecessaryProperClause * 21-Surge_COS-JohnBirchSociety * 22-Surge_COS-ArticleVProcess * 23-Surge_COS-FederalControlLands * 2-Surge_COS-TheLampofExperience * 3-Surge-COS-CanWeTrustTheConstitution * 4-Surge_COS-An_Open_Letter_Converning_TheSecondAmendment * 5-Surge_COS-LearnedMoreAndMore-Article * 6-Surge_COS-HowTheCourtsHaveClarified * 7-Surge_COS-MythRunawayConvention * 8-Surge_COS-WhyAStateShouldAdobtIfAlreadyAdoptedBalancedBudgetAmendment * 9-Surge_COS-CommonSenseCommonCore * C4-1_COSA_JeffersonStatement * C4-2_COSA_Cooper-Flyer * C4-3_COSA_Coburn * C4-4_COSA_DeMint Flyer * C4-5_COSA_Abbott Flyer * C4-6_COSA_Endorsement Flyer * C4-7_COS_Levin Flyer * C4-7_COSA_Levin * C4-8_COSA_ModelApplication * C4-9_COSA_Hannity Endorsement |
| Page Metadata | |
| Login Required to view? | No |
| Created: | 2018-04-20 18:54 GMT |
| Updated: | 2021-02-24 10:25 GMT |
| Published: | 2018-04-20 00:00 GMT |
| Converted: | 2025-11-11 12:10 GMT |
| Change Author: | Michael Tranchina |
| Credit Author: | |
public/cb_mirror/legislator_reference_manual_example_only_pdf_files_6339.txt · Last modified: 2025/11/11 12:10 by 127.0.0.1