Convention of States

[MarkD]

There are only two institutions that can propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- Congress or a national convention that is called for after two-thirds of the states have asked for one. The latter is sometimes known as an Article V Convention; some others call it a "constitutional convention." (Whether that is an appropriate and accurate term is sometimes hotly debated, but I for one don't care what nomenclature is used to describe it.)

As of today, a movement aiming for such a convention has obtained a little more than one-third of the states that it needs to summon it. My home state -- MO, of course -- passed a resolution this afternoon that is similar to ones that have been passed in 11 other states, so now 12 states have passed it. The movement needs 22 more states to pass resolutions like this before the convention can occur.

Here is the resolution that the Missouri House of Representatives passed today, identical in wording to the resolution that was passed by the Missouri Senate one month ago.

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 United States Constitution through a convention of states under Article V to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power:
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the members of the Missouri Senate, Ninety-ninth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the House of Representatives concurring therein, hereby apply to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution 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 members of Congress, ...

I support this resolution too, although not all of the language is exactly the way I would have worded it. I think the fourth "Whereas" should have been worded this way: "Whereas a proper interpretation of the Constitution would not permit the federal government to do everything it is doing, ..." It is rather embarrassing to accuse the federal government of never obeying the Constitution at all.

Remember that this convention, if it occurs after 22 more states pass resolutions like the above, can only propose amendments to the Constitution, like Congress can propose them, but they do not become adopted into the Constitution unless they are ratified by at least 38 states -- 4 more states than the number that is needed to summon the convention.

Anybody else support having a convention like this?

[MarkD]

To give this thread a bump, and to add some more info about TWO convention of states movements that are going on, here are the twelve states that have, so far, passed the resolution worded like the original post, and the dates they passed them.

Georgia, Mar 6, 2014
Alaska, Apr 19, 2014
Florida, Apr 21, 2014
Alabama, May 21, 2015
Tennessee, Feb 4, 2016
Indiana, Feb 29, 2016
Oklahoma, Apr 18, 2016
Louisiana, May 25, 2016
Arizona, Mar 13, 2017
North Dakota, Mar 24, 2017
Texas, May 4, 2017
Missouri, May 12, 2017

Plus, these states have passed the resolution out of one chamber, but not both.
North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Arkansas, Utah, New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and South Dakota.

Kansas, despite having a Republican-dominated legislature, is going to be a difficult one to pass this, because it is the only state, out of all 50, in which the state legislature has to pass the resolution by a two-thirds margin, just like whenever it is faced with the question of whether to ratify any proposed amendment, it has to ratify by a two-thirds margin. This is written into the Kansas Constitution.

Here is some more interesting info for those of you who lean to the left: there is an organization called WolfPac that is seeking to hold a convention of states that will propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Five state legislatures have passed a resolution saying that is what they want.

Vermont, May 2, 2014
California, Jun 23, 2014
Illinois, Dec 3, 2014
New Jersey, Feb 23, 2015
Rhode Island Jun 17, 2016

To learn more about WolfPac: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

The goal of this movement is completely acceptable to me too.

[MarkD]

I don't know.

[MarkD]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Darn. Well, COS Project North Carolina will have to recruit hundreds more grassroots activists, campaign in 2018 against several of the legislators who voted no, and try again in two years.

[MarkD]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the House voted to reconsider it by sending it back to the Rules committee.

http://www.wral.com/push-for-constitutional-convention-not-quite-dead/16793637/

[MarkD]

I just learned that the Kansas Senate failed to pass the resolution last Thursday.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2018/mar/08/effort-call-convention-states-fails-kansas-senate/

[MarkD]

If the delegates are elected to this on a platform of not having to wait twenty years for the changes to pass 38 state legislatures, could they constitutionally waive that necessity?

Nobody knows. The last convention ignored the ratification requirements of its governing document, this one might too. The Court probably wouldn't touch anything about it as it'd be political matters and the Constitution doesn't set limits on the convention's authority. It'd be a giant constitutional crisis because once a convention is called it'd have as much political legitimacy (or more) as Congress or the state legislatures would.

Either way, I'd remind you that another option exists in the Constitution besides getting 38 legislatures to agree once the amendments are written out: Congress could elect to call state conventions to ratify or reject the amendments instead of going to the legislatures. That'd almost certainly be a faster process.

Sure, but the Convention's mandate would already be quite large. I can't imagine the military overriding the Convention. Furthermore, can Congress really claim authority over the Convention, or would we see the two engage in a proxy legal war?

This is the fundamental problem.  It is highly likely that once a Convention is in session, they are effectively re-founding the country and no legal precedents that predate the Convention apply. 

This is only a problem if you assume that most of the commissioners who attend the convention are extremely rambunctious and feel no sense of obligation to the state legislatures that appointed them. It does not worry me.

[MarkD]

A convention is a two edged sword. The proponents of the convention might find they were in a minority in the body and see their favourite amendments rejected and ideas they despised be adopted.

There are also problems with the ground rules.

1. Who would select the delegates? The state legislatures did in 1787, but would some states today prefer popular election?

2. How many delegates would each state get? Would the delegation vote as individuals or be subject to a unit rule? The precedent of 1787 was that each state sent as many delegates as it liked, but that each state had one vote to be cast as the majority of the state's delegates present and voting preferred. If the delegate votes were equal, then the state vote was not cast.

Would CA and TX be content to have the same voting weight as WY and VT?

3. Would the convention be limited to proposing amendments on the subjects referred to by the state requests for the convention? Could it propose other amendments or write a completely new constitution? The precedent of 1787 suggests that the convention could decide to write a new constitution.

4. Would amendments or a new constitutional text be proposed by a simple majority or require a two-thirds vote (whether of states or individual delegates)?

5. Would the amendments have to be ratified under the terms of the 1787 constitution or should a new method of ratification be proposed?

6. How would Congress react to something like a new constitution with a new ratifying method? Perhaps not as compliantly as the Continental Congress did in 1787.

7. If a new constitution was ratified, would the states that declined to ratify be bound by it? The 1787 constitution only applied to the states which had ratified it. It took a few years for NC and RI to accept the new constitution.

1. The state legislatures again would select who attends the convention.

2. As many as the state legislature wants; I don't know.

I hope they would be content.

3. Yes; no; no, they would have to do nothing but propose amendments within the subject range discussed by the resolutions passed by the state legislatures.

4. Simple majority of the state delegations.

5. Amendments have to be ratified according to what is in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. They can't propose an alternative method of ratification.

6. Moot point; there won't be a new method of ratification.

7. Another moot point; there won't be a new Constitution proposed; just amendments.

[MarkD]

Today Arkansas became the 13th state to pass the resolution sponsored by the Convention of States Project.

21 more states to go in order to get the convention started.

Congratulations Arkansas!

[MarkD]

Today Wisconsin became the 16th state to pass the resolution! And we are expecting Nebraska to be the 17th state, perhaps before the end of this month (or very soon after that). Once that happens, we are officially half-way to our goal of 34 states (minimum). After Nebraska, I think it very likely South Carolina will be next.
I am feeling hopeful and optimistic that this year, we'll have a total of twelve states that pass the resolution, which would bring our total to 27, and that's only 7 short of what we need. Having twelve states pass it this year would make up for the fact that no states passed the resolution in 2018, 2020, or 2021. Hence, it has been almost three whole years since the last time I posted on this thread (I happened to skip making a post here in 2019 when the 14th and 15th states passed the resolution.)
Here is the list of which states have passed the resolution, and the date they did so.
Georgia - 03/06/2014
Alaska - 04/19/2014
Florida - 04/21/2014
Alabama - 05/21/2015
Tennessee - 02/04/2016
Indiana - 02/29/2016
Oklahoma - 04/18/2016
Louisiana - 05/25/2016
Arizona - 03/13/2017
North Dakota - 03/24/2017
Texas - 05/10/2017
Missouri - 05/12/2017
Arkansas - 02/14/2019
Utah - 03/05/2019
Mississippi - 03/27/2019
Wisconsin - 01/25/2022

COS says that their resolution has been introduced in 20 states this year, with a state legislator (or two, or more) sponsoring it, and attracting co-sponsors. Here in Illinois, more than half of the Republican state Reps are co-sponsoring HJR0019, but - unfortunately - only one Democrat has signed on as a co-sponsor so far. The COS Illinois team have got to work on persuading more of the Democrats who represent Chicago suburbs to get on board and see how this kind of convention could benefit Illinois too. (When I lived in Missouri in 2017, I successfully persuaded by state Rep, an African-American Democrat, to vote for the COS resolution. He was only one of four Democrats in the House who did vote for it, along with two other Democrats in St. Louis County. The state Senate passed the resolution in a completely bipartisan fashion, thanks to a vote-trading deal that both parties worked out with each other. So I like to think about it being possible to persuade more suburban Illinois Democrats that they should vote for this too.)
If my optimistic hope does happen, and we have 27 states by 12/31/2022, then there will likely be 3 states in 2023, 2 states in 2024, and in the final stretch, hopefully, we'll succeed with 2 more states in 2025. That will likely be the hardest part of the journey. But if it happens, we could have the convention in late 2025 or early 2026.

[MarkD]

Nebraska has passed the resolution today! That means we are now half-way to our goal of 34 states (2/3s of 50).
Here is data I posted three days ago, pertaining to which states have passed the resolution and when they passed it (but rearranged):
2014 -- Georgia (03/06), Alaska (04/19), Florida (04/21)
2015 -- Alabama (05/21)
2016 -- Tennessee (02/04), Indiana (02/29), Oklahoma (04/18), Louisiana (05/25)
2017 -- Arizona (03/13), North Dakota (03/24), Texas (05/10), Missouri (05/12)
2019 -- Arkansas (02/14), Utah (03/05), Mississippi, (03/27)
2022 -- Wisconsin (01/25), Nebraska (01/28).

As I said to brucejoel99 via PM, this is going to be an Article V Convention, not a "constitutional convention." (In saying that, I am effectively rescinding something that I put in the OP of this thread. The terminology IS important after all.) I am going to assume that everyone here knows the difference between a "constitutional convention" and an Article V Convention.

[MarkD]

West Virginia passed the resolution today! We now have 18 of the 34 states that we need.

2014 -- Georgia (03/06), Alaska (04/19), Florida (04/21)
2015 -- Alabama (05/21)
2016 -- Tennessee (02/04), Indiana (02/29), Oklahoma (04/18), Louisiana (05/25)
2017 -- Arizona (03/13), North Dakota (03/24), Texas (05/10), Missouri (05/12)
2019 -- Arkansas (02/14), Utah (03/05), Mississippi, (03/27)
2022 -- Wisconsin (01/25), Nebraska (01/28), West Virginia (03/04).

Quite likely South Carolina will be next. South Dakota came close to passing it last month; the House passed the resolution, but the Senate voted to not put in their calendar this year, which means we have to wait another year before SD can pass it.

I'm still hoping we have 12 states total pass the resolution this year! We need to make up for the fact that there weren't any states that did it during 2018, 2020, or 2021.

[MarkD]

NOW I can accurately report that South Carolina passed the resolution today, which means we now have 19 of the 34 states that we need.

2014 -- Georgia (03/06), Alaska (04/19), Florida (04/21)
2015 -- Alabama (05/21)
2016 -- Tennessee (02/04), Indiana (02/29), Oklahoma (04/18), Louisiana (05/25)
2017 -- Arizona (03/13), North Dakota (03/24), Texas (05/10), Missouri (05/12)
2019 -- Arkansas (02/14), Utah (03/05), Mississippi, (03/27)
2022 -- Wisconsin (01/25), Nebraska (01/28), West Virginia (03/04), South Carolina (03/29).

I don't know which state is more likely going to be the next one. A couple of weeks ago, the Kansas House passed the resolution by a pretty large margin, but it was a few votes shy of the necessary 2/3s margin. Kansas is the only state in the country (SFAIK) that has a requirement, written into the state constitution, that the state legislature has to pass resolutions by a 2/3s margin in both chambers in order to summon an Article V Convention or to ratify proposed amendments to the US Constitution.

[MarkD]

I am bumping this thread again, not to report any good news about another state passing the resolution, but for the opposite reason: I am sad and discouraged that no more states have passed the resolution this year after South Carolina on 3/29. I am sad and discouraged because I was optimistically predicting that a total of 12 states would pass the Convention of States resolution this year, but instead we've had only 4 states do so. If we continue going through the next three of four years having only 3-4 states pass the resolution each year, there won't be a convention until 2027.

My pessimism about whether I will live to see the convention happen has increased this year, for at least three reasons: 1) what I just said about the excruciatingly slow pace of getting to the 34 states that we need to start the convention, 2) the main leader of COS is a guy by the name of Mark Meckler, and I am getting to the point where I can't stand to listen to his speeches any more, I dislike him a great deal and I wish COS would get rid of him as leader and replace him with a much better public speaker, 3) in the social media that I follow to keep up with COS events/news, all too frequently I see embarrassing drivel being posted -- childish hyperbole laced with paranoia -- such as this, which I saw on Facebook a day or two ago:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=464884322474841&set=a.237645861865356

These days I feel more like arguing with COS than I feel like telling them that I support (two of) their goals.

[MarkD]

I am bumping this thread again, not to report any good news about another state passing the resolution, but for the opposite reason: I am sad and discouraged that no more states have passed the resolution this year after South Carolina on 3/29. I am sad and discouraged because I was optimistically predicting that a total of 12 states would pass the Convention of States resolution this year, but instead we've had only 4 states do so. If we continue going through the next three of four years having only 3-4 states pass the resolution each year, there won't be a convention until 2027.

Good. A convention of states would end horribly. It's a good idea in theory, but it wouldn't produce any good amendments.

But a convention of states CANNOT "produce" any amendments. It's impossible. All it can do is propose amendments. When the convention is done with it's business, the proposals still need to be ratified by at least 38 states, and if none of them do get ratified, then the convention was just a big waste of time. So why would you say that the convention would have a horrible ending? Are you so stubbornly partisan that you would feel a deathly chill to merely look at proposals written by conservative Republicans?

In any event, one reason why I am posting today is because I learned, a couple of days ago, that Convention of States Project is reuniting with one of its original founders - Michael Farris. Mr. Farris and Mark Meckler were the co-founder of this movement when it started about ten years ago. But Farris dropped out a few years later in order to pursue other projects, leaving just Mr. Meckler as the sole leader. As I said in my last post in this thread, I don't think highly of Meckler's skills as a public speaker. But I do think highly of Mr. Farris, so I am looking forward to hearing speeches by Farris on behalf of Convention of States Project. Here is a sample of a speech by Farris (on a topic unrelated to COSP). (This video is a little over a half hour.)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0MTkapJGMksdBizrxZEYS4iLoscP5UwqSfw4VqJgPriaUtZSKveHGxEcrWHbK31CSl&id=1469157023&mibextid=Nif5oz

[MarkD]

Milestone: the Convention of States Project has now reached 2.5 million signers on its petition. This means 2.5 million American citizens have indicated to their state legislators that they want this convention to happen -- a convention that will propose amendments to the US Constitution that will deal with these particular subject areas: 1) imposing term limits on federal officials (members of Congress, federal judges, and federal bureaucrats), 2) imposing fiscal discipline on the federal government (balanced budget amendment, requiring that Congress use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles when determining the federal budget, various possible ways to limit taxing and spending), and 3) limiting the power and scope of the federal government.

https://conventionofstates.com/news/cos-hits-2-5-million-petition-signers-reaching-huge-milestone-in-the-fight-for-freedom?fbclid=IwAR0Kj_HLhoh5Wr1JdqZAkpKWNlHawe3TLzYJn386udcVmBTHIAO9q1krQOg

It still appears, though, that we're not going to get any new states to pass the COS resolution this year. We are still at only 19 states so far, and we need 15 more. I remember a few years ago I saw some complaints on Facebook that the process of getting the 34 states to pass this resolution is taking too long, and I admonished those people to have more patience. But now I'm becoming like them, and I'm losing my patience with the slow pace at which we are getting to the goal of 34 states.

[MarkD]

What do the years 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2023 have in common? They are the years in which Convention of States Project failed to get even one new state legislature to pass the resolution that they have been sponsoring now for ten years.

This movement has been stuck at 19 of the 34 states that it needs since March 29, 2022. It's taken ten years to get to just 19 states.

I blame this laggard pace on the poor leadership skills of its president: Mark Meckler. Michael Farris would be a much better leader.

The only good news I feel about reporting today is that I finally saw, today, on Facebook, a post by COS that encapsulates exactly why I do support this movement, and it does so without the usual exaggeration and/or extremism I have so often seen in their FB posts.

This is where I can help make things better with the governing of our nation. -- Gary Brenner, COS New Jersey

https://www.facebook.com/COSProjectMO/posts/pfbid0YFWkgR4aNcPikwDha4UdRzpNKFgo2e4WbsYX6nZSvG4DAboi4t8CyBvMW4bpYy7Ql?comment_id=1061976674949370