Self-governance advocates have always supported robust debate, where the pros and cons of competing ideas are discussed, and voters are allowed to make informed decisions. Conversely, in recent years, it has been the anti-democratic radicals who shout down speakers, claiming that their ideas are too dangerous to be heard. That is, until an Article V convention is the subject. Then the roles reverse.
This spring the Idaho legislature debated a resolution calling for an Article V convention to address government overreach with amendment proposals. During testimony, convention proponents argued the need for a convention, presented a long list of conservative thought leaders calling for one, and explained the safeguards which would keep such a convention on track.
Opponents from across the political spectrum – and including the Idaho Republican party leadership – had a visceral reaction to the resolution. They testified that the mere conduct of a convention to discuss amendments was much too dangerous. They howled:
- There is no way to keep a convention of states on topic.
- The big states will dominate the convention and relegate the small states to irrelevancy.
- All kinds of social justice nonsense will be added to the Constitution at the convention.
- The second amendment could be eliminated at the convention.
- Commissioners at the convention could even write an amendment declaring the entire Constitution null and void.
- The founding fathers were fools to authorize anyone but members of Congress to initiate the amendment process.
The horror! At least until one takes the time to read Article V.
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 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
Emphasis added.
The process does not authorize either Congress or a convention of states to amend the Constitution. The authority of a convention is limited to debating ideas, and sending them to the states for consideration, so that the self-governed may, you know, … self-govern. Convention commissioners can talk, shout, argue, call each other names, and make faces at each other. But the only things a convention of states is authorized to create … are proposals. That’s it. “We the people” will be given some ideas about how the Constitution could be changed, but nothing about our founding document can be changed by a convention.
Regardless of whether amendment proposals originate from Congress or from an Article V convention, the states retain the power to amend the Constitution – via the ratification process. For an amendment to be ratified, three-quarters of the states must approve it, and all states have an equal vote – large and small.
If 38 states favored any of the doomsday predictions of the opponents, Congress would have already initiated the amendment process. But Congress hasn’t because a supermajority of states does not favor anything radical, and still wouldn’t if it emanated from a convention.
For example: A whopping 29 states have declared themselves “constitutional carry” states – in which the 2nd Amendment is the only authorization needed for residents to carry a firearm. Those states do not require a permit to carry a firearm in public. It is inconceivable that 17 of those states would change their position on the right to bear arms, and suddenly become one of the 38 states needed to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.
Hence, there is little risk of a convention proposing anything outside the resolution given it by the calling states. The 38-state ratification bar can’t be met for anything that 34 states don’t already support. Therefore, opposition to an Article V convention on the grounds that it would be “too dangerous” is either from being ill informed, or opposed to political debate.
While the argument continues about whether acting or not acting is more dangerous, we are in real danger of leaving an America to our children in which self-governance (and freedom) is a thing of the past.
- Congress has empowered the executive branch to legislate, and abdicated its oversight duty.
- The judicial branch is invalidating the will of the people by exceeding its Article III authority to countermand policies we voted for.
- The bureaucrats of the executive branch have formed a shadow government and declared their resistance to our elected leadership.
- Trillions of our tax dollars, are spent with no record of what it’s being spent on.
And yet, groups ranging from the liberal Common Cause, to the conservative John Birch Society – and even parts of the Republican and Democrat parties – argue that debating ideas to reestablish accountability, is “too dangerous” for a self-governed people. While the “shining city on the hill” burns, we’re debating about whether to debate. God help us.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA