This six-page document provides more in-depth answers to many of same questions posed in the Frequently Asked Questions document.

Attachment: 63/Real_Answers_to_Article_V_Questions.pdf

Real Answers to Article V Questions  By Rita M. Dunaway, J.D.  Beneath the cloud of dust that has been raised by those who will oppose Article V’s convention  mechanism at any cost, there are real answers to be found to genuine questions and concerns  about the process.  These answers, as you will see, are grounded in combinations of historical  fact, law, precedent, and logic.  Good Constitutional Amendments Can Correct Most of the Federal Abuses of Power.   First of all, it is important to understand why the Convention of States Project is seeking to  trigger an amendment-proposing convention in the first place.  Adding amendments to the  Constitution is a serious and difficult business, and we would not undertake this enormous effort  if we believed there was some other way to put our nation back on its proper course.  But most of the problems we now face are the result of constitutional  interpretations  that  capitalize on ambiguities in the wording of certain phrases (i.e., the General Welfare Clause— now interpreted as unlimited power to spend).  So we can restore the federal government to its  proper, limited place only by clarifying the original meaning of those phrases through  constitutional amendments—effectively overturning the bad Supreme Court precedents that have  eviscerated our federal system.  Article V’s Convention Mechanism is  the  Tool Given to the States to Check Federal  Power.  It is Not Controlled by Congress.   Article V naysayers claim that we should fear the use of the convention mechanism because they  believe that Congress, which is given the duty to “call” the Convention upon application by 34  states, then proceeds to dictate the operations of the convention, determine the scope of the  proposals to be discussed, and even select the delegates to attend it!  This claim is easily laid to  rest using a combination of history, logic, and precedents.  History –  Review James Madison’s Notes of the Convention for September 15, 1787.  An earlier  version of Article V gave Congress the power to propose amendments whenever two-thirds of  both Houses deemed it necessary, or upon application of two-thirds of the state legislatures.  At  first glance, this sounds very similar to the current version of Article V.  The difference between  that version and the current version is in  who  does the proposing.  Col. George Mason objected to the earlier version.  He “thought the plan of amending the  Constitution exceptionable & dangerous.  As the proposing of amendments is in both modes to  depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments 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.”  And so we got the current version, unanimously adopted by the Constitution’s drafters, requiring  Congress to call a convention of the states for proposing amendments upon application of two- thirds of the states.  On November 14, 1788, the Virginia General Assembly filed the first application for an Article  V Convention to propose a bill of rights, using this language:  The anxiety with which our countrymen press for the accomplishment of this important end, will  ill admit of delay. The slow forms of Congressional discussion and recommendation, if, indeed,  they should ever agree to any change, would, we fear, be less certain of success.  Happily for  their wishes, the Constitution hath presented an alternative, by admitting the submission to a  convention of the States . To this, therefore, we resort as the source from whence they are to  derive relief from their present apprehensions.   We do, therefore, in behalf of our constituents, in the most earnest and solemn manner, make this  application to Congress, that a convention be immediately called, of deputies from the several  States, with full power to take into their consideration the defects of this Constitution that have  been suggested by the State Conventions, and report such amendments thereto as they shall find  best suited to promote our common interests, and secure to ourselves and our latest posterity, the  great and unalienable rights of mankind.   This document makes it abundantly clear that an Article V Convention is a “convention of the  States,” to be composed of “deputies from the several States.”  Logic   - In light of the stated purpose of our Founding Fathers in adding the Convention  mechanism to Article V (to provide the states with a way to bypass Congress), it would have  been completely illogical for them to choose, as their safety net, a process that gave Congress  control over what proposals could be considered, the identity of delegates to consider them and  the rules that would govern the convention.  Our Founding Fathers were far too wise and  experienced to have made such an obvious blunder.   Precedent  – The body that “calls” an interstate convention does not, by virtue of issuing the  “call,” exercise any power to choose or commission the delegates who will represent other  bodies at the convention, nor any power over the rules or operation of the convention.  This is a  matter of logic, but also a matter of precedent.  Remember that Virginia “called” the Philadelphia  Convention of 1787. Did it get to choose the delegates for Massachusetts? Of course not.  Massachusetts did. Each state chooses its own delegates regardless of what body calls the  convention.   Conclusion:   The states control the Article V convention process from beginning to  end.  Congress’ role is limited to issuing the “call,” once it receives 34 applications for a  convention on the same topic.  The “call” simply sets the date, time and location of the  meeting.  The state legislatures control the selection and commissioning of their convention  delegates.  Congress Cannot Use Its Article I Powers to Control an Article V Convention.   Article V naysayers claim that once 34 applications have been filed, Congress will assert its  power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to take over the process.  The response to this is a  matter of law.  The Necessary and Proper Clause does not apply to Article V at all, because the  limited authority Congress has under Article V is a separate creature from its regular, legislative  powers.  The Necessary and Proper Clause is part of the regular legislative power found in  Article I.   The federal courts have ruled that Congress’ attempt to use Article I power to affect the Article  V process through ordinary legislation was unconstitutional.  See Idaho v. Freeman , 529 F.Supp.  1107, 1151 (D. Idaho 1981) (“Thus Congress, outside of the authority granted by article V, has  no power to act with regard to an amendment, i.e., it does not retain any of its traditional  authority vested in it by article I.”).  This case was litigated and won by the Convention of States  Project’s own Michael Farris.  There is also a logical flaw here.  Why would Congress even bother to make a legally doomed  effort to try to control the Article V convention mechanism, when it can simply propose  amendments of its own under Article V power any day that it sits in session without a  convention?  And  even if  Congress were somehow to gain control of an Article V convention,  why should we fear the results any more than we fear the amendments it can propose on its own  any day that it sits in session?    No matter who proposes the amendments, the requirement of 38 states for ratification is a  guarantee that only amendments supported by the vast majority of the American people can  become part of our Constitution.  The Scope of an Article V Convention Can Be Limited.   Article V naysayers claim that at an Article V Convention, our entire Constitution will be thrown  open for surgery—including our Bill of Rights.  This is wrong as a matter of fact, precedent, and  logic.  Fact   - Over 400 applications for an Article V Convention have been filed.  The reason we have  never had one is because there have never been 34 applications seeking a convention for the  same purpose.  This fact demonstrates that the purpose or scope specified in the applications do  matter, and only when 34 states agree to convene on a given topic will the Convention even be  triggered.  Precedent  – When states convene, they always have a particular purpose and specified  topic.  The purpose of the 1787 Convention was to “render the Federal constitution adequate to  the exigencies of the Union.”  The purpose of the Annapolis Convention was to address trade  barriers between states.    Logic  – Official meetings of any kind always have a stated purpose and/or agenda.  There is just  no other rational way to conduct business.  Conclusion  – The Convention of States Project application limits the scope of an Article V  Convention to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,  limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and set term limits for its officials and  members of Congress.  States can instruct their delegates to entertain only a more  narrow  scope  of proposals, but they cannot broaden the topic beyond that identified in the 34 triggering  applications.  Contrary conclusions have no basis in fact, law or history.   There are Numerous, Redundant Safeguards on the Article V Convention Process.    (1)The scope of authority for the convention is defined by the topic specified in the 34  applications that trigger the convention.  These applications are the very source of authority for  the convention to begin with.  Any proposals beyond that scope would be out of order, and any  single delegate could object to their consideration.  (2) Even if  not a single convention delegate objected to an out-of-order proposal, and/or  even  if  the convention delegates had installed a parliamentarian who refused to sustain an objection,  state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their authority or instructions.  This is  because convention delegates are the agents (a legal term of art) of their state legislature and are  subject to the instructions given by their state legislature.  As a matter of basic agency law, any  actions taken outside the scope of a delegate’s authority would be void.  (3) Even if  a majority of convention delegates went rogue,  and  state legislatures failed to stop  commissioners from acting beyond their powers,  and  Congress nevertheless sent the illicit  amendment proposals to the states for ratification, the courts would declare the proposals  void.  While the courts don’t have a wonderful track record in interpreting broad constitutional  language, they do have an excellent track record of enforcing clear, technical matters of  procedure and agency law.  (4) Even if  ALL of those protections failed, it borders insanity to think that 38 states (the  requirement for ratification) would ratify an amendment proposed under these circumstances.    Voting at an Article V Convention Will Be On a One-State, One-Vote Basis.   This is a matter of precedent.  The universal precedent for voting at an interstate convention is on  a one-state, one-vote basis.  It is not a convention of delegates but a convention of states.  This is  the reason Article V did not need 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.    This is also a matter of history.  In 1788, the Virginia legislature correctly called this process a  “convention of states” in the first application ever passed under Article V.  Nothing has changed  since then.   It is also a matter of law.  The Supreme Court has also referred to it as a “convention of  states.”  Smith v. Union Bank of Georgetown , 30 U.S. 518 (1831).  At a convention of states, voting is by states.   Our Constitution is Not the Illegitimate Result of a “Runaway Convention.”   The argument that our Constitution is the result of a “runaway convention” that was called by the  Confederation Congress to “solely revise the Articles of Confederation” is a myth that is easily  debunked by an examination of historical documents—the language and date of the Virginia call  for the convention, and the instructions given to its delegates as well as the instructions given by  the other states to their delegates.    The Confederation Congress did  not  “call” the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it merely made a  recommendation.  It had no authority to call a convention under the Articles of Confederation— but the states did retain this authority as an aspect of their residual sovereignty.  For a complete  discussion, see this  article  by constitutional attorney and Article V expert, Michael Farris.   Conclusion   At the outset of this paper, I promised that the answers you would find here are all grounded in  some combination of historical fact, law, precedent and/or logic.  I have kept my promise.    Now I challenge you to review the claims made by the Article V naysayers.  You will find  quotes from others who have arrived at the same erroneous conclusions.  You will find theories  that an examination of historical records exposes as specious.  You will find conspiracy theories,  fears, and prophecies of impending doom in the event that we dare to call together state  representatives for a meeting under the Article V procedure.  What you will not find are accurate  facts, law, or precedents.  Asking “What if…?” questions that posit far-fetched scenarios is a  poor substitute for a reasoned argument against acting pursuant to the Constitution to rescue our  nation.  Our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor when they fought a  bloody revolution to secure for us the right of self-governance.  They knew a day would come  when we would need a way to restrain a power-grabbing federal government.  So they gave us  Article V’s convention mechanism.  It ingeniously capitalizes on the natural alignment of the  interest of state legislators (in having governing power at the state level) with the interest of the  people (in restraining federal power).  Once we understand the truth about Article V, there is one question that remains.  Are we really  so fearful a people that we will stand by and watch our federal government mutate into a socialist  regime rather than “risk” sending our state representatives to a meeting?