To view this on the COS website, click here we-are-far-from-alone-in-this-effort

We are far from alone in this effort!

To make much-needed changes to our Constitution, there are many ways to address those needs. COS has a well defined and precisely constructed approach. The Wall Street Journal recently suggested similar – not identical paths. This article compares the two approaches.

In the tumult of contemporary American governance, two narratives run in parallel: one, a constitutional crusade to re-engineer the rules of the game; the other, a plea for internal restoration of the spirit and discipline of governance. On one hand stands the Convention of States (COS) movement, which calls for a bold constitutional intervention to rein in federal overreach, fiscal responsibility, and term limits.

On the other stands John C. Danforth and Rina Shah’s recent (16 Oct 25). Wall Street Journal essay, “Republicans, Ditch MAGA and Return to the Basics,” which urges a return to foundational Republican virtues – including fiscal responsibility and limiting government overreach – as the path to revival. Though both emerge from conservative discontent with the present order, they diverge sharply in method, assumption, and risk tolerance—and their comparison illustrates a deeper strategic divide in how to re-achieve constitutional balance.

At the heart of our COS proposal is a transformative, structural ambition. Leveraging the wisdom of our Founders instilled in Article V, COS seeks to mobilize state legislatures to call a convention that would propose amendments targeted at three major axes: imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the scope and jurisdiction of federal power, and setting term limits for members of Congress and federal officials. To date, 19 states have adopted this approach.

Our movement emphasizes that Congress will not willingly restrain itself—and thus only a bold, bottom-up enforcement via the states – WE THE PEOPLE – can reset the balance among national powers. COS also conceives itself as more than a constitutional campaign: as a civic culture project. Its mission includes building a grassroots “army of self-governing activists” to shift political and cultural norms across the states. Given how dark blue Massachusetts has been historically, this will be a challenge. But there’s good news: there are some signs that Massachusetts, long a reliably “blue” state, may be experiencing subtle shifts or undercurrents worth watching. To wit:

· Smaller margins for Democrats in statewide or national elections

· Republicans gaining ground in state or local offices

· A rise in independent or unaffiliated voters

· Shifts in issue preferences (e.g. more competitive on fiscal or cultural issues)

· Party registration changing (fewer registered Democrats, more Republicans or unaffiliated)

Yet such ambition carries significant uncertainty. Critics warn that once convened, an Article V convention may exceed its mandate, proposing amendments beyond those originally intended. Or that there is little precedent for such a convention; and that maintaining constraints on scope, process, and outcomes is a central challenge. Readers of this site won’t find it hard to learn of the fallacies of these and similar arguments fomented by our misinformed detractors.

By contrast, Danforth & Shah’s essay is rooted firmly in the political, institutional, and cultural arena. They do not call for structural rewrites or constitutional reboots; instead, they argue that the Republican Party must reclaim its intellectual foundation: rule of law, limited government, and unity. According to them, the GOP has been seduced by personality, factionalism, and expedience—especially under the influence of “MAGA”—and thereby lost coherence and credibility. Their prescription is renewal from within: restoring internal discipline, recommitting to constitutional norms, and appealing to broader national constituencies rather than base polarization.

While COS and Danforth & Shah share certain diagnoses—especially that the federal government has grown too ambitious and that constitutional order has eroded—their convergence ends there. COS is premised on structural remedy; Danforth & Shah’s approach is restorative. COS assumes institutions will not self-correct; Danforth & Shah, by contrast, places trust (or hope) in disciplined leadership and a reenergized political center. COS is sweeping and long-range; Danforth & Shah mostly operate in the realm of moving electoral behavior, party renewal, and culture.

Which do you feel is the more likely path? In any event, it’s nice to see that there are supporters of our goals, albeit with differing philosophical approaches. The tent of reform is large. We welcome all like-minded people. The support grows every day.

If you haven’t done so, be sure you sign the petition below and support the efforts of COS.

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2025-10-17 22:58 GMT
Updated:	2025-10-24 07:00 GMT
Published:	2025-10-17 19:58 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:07 GMT
Change Author:	Jeffrey Myers
Credit Author: