The Article V Solution - Demystifying a Dusty Tool By Rita Peters, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for Convention of States Action

Attachment: 3986/Article18-DemystifyingADustyTool_COSA122022.pdf

It’s time to dust  off the tool the  Founders gave us  in Article V.     THE ARTICLE V SOLUTION —   DEMYSTIFYING A DUSTY TOOL   Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for Convention of States Action  Updated November 2022   PERHAPS THE MOST unifying  conservative trait is the conviction that  our Founding Fathers designed an  ingenious federal system that we ought  to conserve. But as federalism lies dying  and our society spirals toward socialism,  there is dissension among conservatives  about using the procedure 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  and dangerous power—a thing shrouded  in mystery, riddled with unanswerable  questions, and therefore best left alone.  Some have literally labeled it a “Pando- ra’s Box,” the opening of which would  unleash all manner of evil upon our be- leaguered nation. Article V opponents accuse proponents  of being reckless with the Constitution.  They say we have no idea how a conven- tion would work, who would choose the  delegates, how votes would be appor- tioned, or whether the topic of amend- ments 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 achiev- ing needed constitutional amendments.  An early draft of Article V vested Con- gress with the sole power to propose  constitutional amendments. Under that  version, two-thirds of the states could pe- tition Congress to propose amendments,  but it was still Congress that did the pro- posing. On Sept.  15, 1787 , George Mason  strenuously objected to this, pointing out  that such a system provided no recourse  for the states if the national government  should become tyrannical, as he predict- ed 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 amend- ments 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 ratified by three-fourths, or  38 ,  of the states in order to become effective. The “unanswerable” questions about Ar- ticle V do have answers.  Continued on back page The “unanswerable”  questions about  Article V do have  answers.  Continued from front page 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  in- terstate conventions that occurred pri- or to the Constitution’s drafting. It ex- plains 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 legisla- tures. Again, this is a matter of univer- sal historical 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 con- vention “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  contemporaneous 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 speci- fied in the convention applications does  matter. Over  400  applications for an Ar- ticle V convention 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 pur- pose. 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  convention 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 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 (540)441-7227 |  C ONVENTION O F S TATES . COM  | Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates| | Twitter.com/COSproject