CONVENTION OF STATES A HANDBOOK FOR LEGISLATORS AND CITIZENS - CONVENTIONOFSTATES.COM
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Convention
of States
ConventionOfStates.com
A Handbook for
Legislators and Citizens
Third Edition
SelfGovern.com
ConventionofStates Handbook
A PROJECT OF CITIZENS FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE
A Solution As BIG As The Problem!
Table of Contents
The Case for a Convention of States
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Washington, D.C., Is Out of Control and Will Not Relinquish Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Founders Gave Us a Solution: A Convention of States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
How Our Proposal Differs from Other Article V Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Our Political Plan to Call a Convention of States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Why a Convention of States Is the Safest Alternative to Preserve Our Liberty. . . . . . 10
We Know How a Convention of States Would Operate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Action Steps for Legislators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Action Steps for Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Model Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
“Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the
‘Runaway Convention’ Myth” by Michael Farris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Excerpts from “Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the
Constitution’s ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ ”
by Professor Robert G. Natelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1
Introduction
ConventionofStates Handbook
The public widely believes our nation is headed in the wrong direction. They believe that future
prospects are troubling, not only for this generation but for generations to come.
The public is correct.
What is not widely known is that the Constitution itself provides a real, effective solution. Mark
Levin’s bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, has opened the eyes of millions of Americans
to the possibility of stopping the federal abuses of power through a Convention of States. Although
we began the COS Project independently, our plan is a near-perfect match with Levin’s ideas.
The plan we propose does not commit us to any particular amendments. That will be up to the
states when they convene. But it does commit us to a particular subject—proposed amendments
must be designed to limit the power of the federal government.
3
ConventionofStates Handbook
“If we do nothing to halt
these abuses, we run the
risk of becoming, as
Alexis de Tocqueville
warned, nothing more
than ‘a flock of timid and
industrious animals, of
which the government is
the shepherd.’ ”
Washington, D.C., Is Out of Control
and Will Not Relinquish Power
We see four major abuses of the federal regulations have lowered the real GDP
government: growth by 2% and made America
1. The Spending
72% poorer.
and Debt Crisis
• The Spending and Debt Crisis The $17 trillion national debt is stagger-
ing, but it only tells a part of the story.
• The Regulatory Crisis If we apply the normal rules of business 3. Congressional Attacks
• Congressional Attacks on State accounting, the federal government on State Sovereignty
Sovereignty owes at least $50 trillion more in vested For years, Congress has been using fed-
Social Security benefits and other pro- eral grants to keep the states under its
• Federal Takeover of Decision grams. This is why the government can- control. By attaching mandates to fed-
Making not tax its way out of debt. Even if it eral grants, Congress has turned state
These abuses are not mere instances of confiscated everything owned by pri- legislatures into their regional agencies
bad policy. They are driving us towards vate citizens and companies, there rather than treating them as truly inde-
an age of “soft tyranny” in which the would still not be enough to cover the pendent republican governments.
government “softens, bends, and debt.
A radical social agenda and an erosion
guides” men’s wills. If we do nothing to
of the rights of the people accompany
halt these abuses, we run the risk of
all of this. While substantial efforts
becoming, as Alexis de Tocqueville
2. The Regulatory Crisis
The federal bureaucracy has placed a have been made to combat social engi-
warned in 1840, nothing more than regulatory burden upon businesses that neering and protect peoples’ rights, we
“a flock of timid and industrious ani- is complex, conflicted, and crushing. have missed one of the most important
mals, of which the government is the Little accountability exists when exec- principles of the American founding.
shepherd.” utive agencies—rather than Congress— State legislatures need to be free to
enact the real substance of the law. implement the will of the voters in their
Research from the American Enterprise own states, not the will of Congress.
Institute, shows that since 1949 federal
4
protection of liberty requires a strict Government, rather than the States,
adherence to the principle that power is would assume such responsibilities.
4. Federal Takeover of the
ConventionofStates Handbook
limited and delegated. Yet the powers conferred upon the
Decision Making Process
The Founders believed the structures of
a limited government would provide the Federal Government by the Constitu-
Washington, D.C., does not believe
greatest protection of liberty. There tion were phrased in language broad
this principle, as evidenced by an
were to be checks and balances at the enough to allow for the expansion of
unbroken practice of expanding the
federal level. And everything not specif- the Federal Government’s role.
boundaries of federal power. In a
ically granted to Congress for legisla- remarkably frank admission, the New York v. United States, 505 U.S.
tive control was to be left to the states Supreme Court rebuffed a constitutional 144, 157 (1992).
and the people. challenge to the federal spending power
This is not a partisan issue. Washington,
Collusion among decision makers in by acknowledging its approval of pro-
D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish
Washington, D.C., has overrun these grams that violate the original meaning
meaningful power—no matter who is
checks and balances. The federal judi- of the Constitution:
elected. The only rational conclusion is
ciary supports Congress and the White This framework has been sufficiently this: unless some political force outside
House in their ever-escalating attack flexible over the past two centuries to of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the
upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states. allow for enormous changes in the federal government will continue to
This is more than an attack on the inde- nature of government. The Federal bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legit-
pendence of the states. This robs the Government undertakes activities imate authority of the states, and
people of their most fundamental lib- today that would have been unimag- destroy the liberty of the people. Rather
erty—the right of self-governance. inable to the Framers in two senses; than securing the blessings of liberty for
We need to realize that the structure of first, because the Framers would not future generations, Washington, D.C., is
decision making matters. Who decides have conceived that any government on a path that will enslave our children
what the law shall be is even more would conduct such activities; and and grandchildren to the debts of
important than what is decided. The second, because the Framers would the past.
not have believed that the Federal
“This is not a partisan issue.
Washington, D.C., will never
voluntarily relinquish
meaningful power — no
matter who is elected.”
“We need to realize that the
structure of decision-making
matters. Who decides what
the law shall be is even
more important than what
is decided.”
5
ConventionofStates Handbook
“By calling a convention of states, we can stop the federal
spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts,
and other misuses of federal power.”
The Founders Gave Us a Solution:
A Convention of States
Most people don’t know that there are By calling a convention of states, we must agree for any of the proposed
two methods to propose amendments to can stop the federal spending and amendments to be ratified.
the Constitution. debt spree, the power grabs of the fed-
Congress has no authority to stop
eral courts, and other misuses of
1. Two-thirds of each house of such a process. The Founders made sure
federal power. The current situation is
Congress agrees to propose a partic- of that.
precisely what the Founders feared, and
ular amendment; or
they gave us a solution we have a duty We are approaching a crossroads. One
2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures to use. path leads to the escalating power of an
pass applications for an amend- irresponsible centralized government,
After the states propose, debate, and
ments convention. ultimately resulting in the financial ruin
vote upon the proposed amendments,
of generations of Americans. The other
The Founders knew the federal govern- they will be sent to the 50 state legisla-
path leads to the restoration of liberty
ment might one day become drunk with tures for ratification. Congress must
and an American renaissance.
power. The most important check to this choose one of two “modes of ratifica-
power is Article V. Article V gives states tion.” They can either submit the Which will you choose?
the authority to hold a convention for amendments to state conventions
the purpose of proposing amendments elected for that purpose or to the state
to the Constitution. legislatures. Three-quarters of the states
6
ConventionofStates Handbook
Article V, U.S. Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Provided that no Amendment which may be made
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and
shall call a Convention for proposing Amend- eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth
ments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
of the several States, or by Conventions in three
A story from the Convention of 1787:
“On September 15, as the Convention
was reviewing the revisions made by the
Committee of Style, George Mason
expressed opposition to the provisions
limiting the power to propose amendments
to Congress. According to the Convention
records, Mason thought that ‘no amend-
ments 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.’ In response,
Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry
made a motion to amend the article to
reintroduce language requiring that a
convention be called when two-thirds of
the States applied for an amendment.”
30 Harvard Journal of Law and
Public Policy 1005, 1007 (2007).
7
How Our Proposal Differs from
ConventionofStates Handbook
Other Article V Plans
We believe our strategy gives us an raising taxes. We need spending • A prohibition of using international
excellent chance of success. restraints as well. We need restraints on treaties and law to govern the domestic
taxation. We need prohibitions against law of the United States
Two goals separate our plan from all
improper federal regulation. We need to • A limitation on using Executive Orders
other Article V efforts:
stop unfunded mandates. and federal regulations to enact laws
1. We want to call a convention for a (since the Congress is supposed to be
No current Article V proposal has been
particular subject rather than a par- the exclusive agency to enact laws)
able to reach the 34 state applications
ticular amendment. Instead of calling
needed to call a Convention of States. • Imposing real checks and balances
a convention for a balanced budget
There is not enough momentum behind on the Supreme Court (such as
amendment (though we are entirely
any one amendment. Ideally, the Con- term limits)
supportive of such an amendment),
vention of States Project allows all these • Placing a limit on federal taxation
we want to call a convention for the
Article V efforts to combine, giving
purpose of limiting the power and Of course, these are merely examples of
them the collective force necessary to
jurisdiction of the federal govern- what could be up for discussion. So long
call a convention.
ment. as a proposed amendment relates to lim-
Once called, the delegates will be able iting the power of the federal govern-
2. We believe the grassroots is the key
to debate and propose a complete pack- ment, the Convention of States itself
to calling a successful convention.
age of restraints on all branches of the would determine which ideas deserve
The goal is to build a political oper-
federal government. This is what our serious consideration, and it will take a
ation in a minimum of 40 states, get-
plan will do. It would allow ALL majority of votes from the states to for-
ting 100 people to volunteer in at
amendments germane to “limiting the mally propose any amendments.
least 75% of the state legislative dis-
power and jurisdiction of the federal
trict (that’s 3,000 districts). We American citizens have become so frus-
government” to be considered.
believe this is very realistic. Through trated with runaway federal power that
the support of the American people they have begun discussing ideas like
this project will succeed. What Sort of Amendments
nullification and even secession. Such
ideas are not only impractical; they
Could Be Passed?
The following are examples of amend- could ultimately lead to a violent con-
ment topics that could be proposed at a
Our Solution Is
flict. We need not turn to such dangerous
convention of states: alternatives. The Founders gave us a
Big Enough to
• A balanced budget amendment legitimate path to save our liberty by
Solve the Problem
Rather than calling a convention for a
specific amendment, Citizens for Self- • Reducing federal spending power using our state governments to impose
Governance has launched the Conven- (fixing the General Welfare Clause) binding restraints on the federal govern-
tion of States Project to urge state ment. We must use the power granted to
• Reducing federal regulatory power
legislatures to properly use Article V to the states in the Constitution.
(fixing the Commerce Clause)
call a convention for a particular sub-
ject—reducing the power of Washing-
ton, D.C. It is important to note that a
convention for an individual amend-
“The Founders gave us a legitimate path
ment (e.g. a balanced budget amend- to save our liberty by using our state
ment) would be limited to that single
idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a governments to impose binding restraints
great idea that CSG fully supports. Con-
gress, however, could comply with a on the federal government.”
balanced budget amendment by simply
8
Our Political Plan to Call
ConventionofStates Handbook
a Convention of States
CSG’s President, Mark Meckler, was Unfortunately, the balanced budget plan
the co-founder of the Tea Party relies on applications that were enacted
The Grassroots
The leadership of the COS Project
believes the success of a Convention of Patriots — the largest tea party group in ten, twenty, and thirty years ago.
States depends directly on American the country. Michael Farris is the The grassroots organizations that
citizens. Our plan is not only simple, it founder of the Home School Legal achieved those victories are long gone.
is realistic: Defense Association. As such, he brings Starting fresh insures that we have cur-
with him over 30 years of grassroots rent political operations in all the states
• We will build a viable political opera- leadership and activism in all 50 states. necessary to actually ratify any
tion that is active in at least 40 states. Eric O’Keefe was the lead organizer for proposed amendments.
• These 40 states have approximately the term limits movement that resulted
Starting fresh also allows us to avoid
4,000 state house districts. Our goal is in 23 states passing ballot initiatives to
any legal difficulties that may arise dur-
to have a viable political operation in that effect. We not only have experi-
ing the “aggregation” process. Applica-
at least 3,000 of these districts. enced staff for this project, but we are
tions must deal with the same issue in
also networking with like-minded coali-
• We will have 3,000 district captains order for them to be counted towards the
tion members across America.
who will organize at least 100 people necessary 34 states (or, in order for them
in each district to contact their The strategic advantage of a fresh start to be “aggregated”). Many of the bal-
state legislators to support a conven- on the application process is that we will anced budget applications, for example,
tion of states, and turn out at least be building current grassroots opera- are sufficiently different that they may
25 people per district at legislative tions in all of the states needed be subject to legal challenge when the
hearings. to ratify any proposed amendments, and time comes to determine which states
have them all addressed at one conven- are included in the count. It is unlikely
Legislators must know that our grass- tion. If one of the existing proposals all balanced budget applications cur-
roots team will have their backs if they (such as the balanced budget applica- rently pending will be successfully
support a Convention of States. A wide- tions) achieved 34 valid applications, aggregated. We will be proceeding with
spread grassroots organization has been CSG certainly would support it as well. a unified application using the same
missing from the Article V movement. operative language in all states.
Thus, there is both a legal advantage
(clear aggregation) and a political
advantage (current grassroots network-
ing) to a fresh start on the application
The success of
process. Moreover, we will have a
greater ability to protect our liberty by
a Convention
addressing the full scope of the prob-
lems in Washington, D.C., through a
of States
Convention of States.
depends
This unique strategy combined with
directly on strong grassroots support will provide a
clear path to victory.
Only one question remains. Will you
the American
help?
citizens.
9
Why a Convention of States Is the Safest
ConventionofStates Handbook
Alternative to Preserve Our Liberty
The most common objection to an Arti- ally when it changed the rules of the
cle V convention envisions a doomsday process in midstream. See, Idaho v.
American citizens must evaluate the rel-
scenario where delegates disregard the Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D.
ative safety of two choices. Should we
purpose of the convention, rewrite the Idaho 1981). CSG’s Senior Fellow
allow our runaway federal government
Constitution, and change the entire for Constitutional Studies, Michael
to continue to abuse the Constitution
American system of government. This Farris, was lead counsel for several
and the rights of the people, with the
has been called the “runaway conven- Washington state legislators in that
vague hope that someday Washington,
tion” scenario, and it is based on fear litigation.
D.C., will see the light and relinquish
and misinformation.
4. There is absolutely no historical power? Or should we call a Convention
Here are the facts: precedent for a runaway conven- of States, trusting that one of the many
tion. Many opponents of a Conven- lines of defense will stop any misuse of
1. There is a clear, strong single-sub-
tion of States make the historically power?
ject precedent that would almost
false allegation that our Constitution
certainly be declared binding in At the end of the day, we must trust
was adopted as the result of an ille-
the event of a court challenge. either Congress or the states. Recent
gal runaway convention. This argu-
There have been over 400 applica- history makes that an easy choice.
ment was invented by the enemies of
tions from state legislatures for an Washington, D.C., is clearly the greatest
the Constitution and is unsupported
Article V convention in the history danger to our liberty.
by historical fact. The truth is that the
of the Republic. No such convention
new process for adopting the Consti- We believe the choice is clear. A Con-
has ever been called because there
tution was unanimously approved vention of States is the safest path to
has never been an application from
by both the Congress and all 13 preserve self-government and liberty.
two-thirds of the states on a single
states as required by the Articles of
subject. In addition to this, there is a
Confederation. (See “Can We Trust
huge amount of historical precedent
“At the end of the day,
the Constitution?” by Michael Farris
that limits interstate conventions to
on page 17).
a particular subject. See Professor we must trust either
Robert G. Natelson’s handbook Thus, there are multiple lines of
here: ww.alec.org/publications/ defense against any amendment that
article-v-handbook/. Also see his departs from the original subject:
Congress or the States.
essay on page 19. (1) A majority of states at the Conven-
tion would almost certainly vote such a
2. Ratification of any proposed
Recent history makes
proposal to be out of order; (2) If such
amendment requires the approval
an amendment was proposed, a proper
of 38 states. It only takes 13 states
that an easy choice.
legal challenge would certainly be filed
to vote “no” to defeat any proposed
and have a great chance of success;
amendment. The chances of 38 state
(3) It is highly probable that at least 13
Washington, D.C., is
legislatures approving a rogue
states would defeat any such proposed
amendment are effectively zero.
amendment during the ratification clearly the greatest
3. Improper changes to the process process; (4) It is a historical fallacy to
can be legally challenged by state argue that we have an established
legislators. Federal courts have held precedent of Conventions changing the
danger to our liberty.”
that Congress acted unconstitution- rules illegally.
10ConventionofStates Handbook
“The convention for
proposing amendments is
called to propose solutions
to discrete, pre-assigned
problems.” “When two-
thirds of the states apply on
a given subject, Congress
must call the convention.”
We Know How a Convention of States
Would Operate
There are some who claim we know Constitutional Convention, when history. Not a single one exceeded its
nothing about how a Convention of states or colonies met together on prescribed mandate—not even the
States would function. They say that no average every 40 months. There are Constitutional Convention, despite
precedent exists for such a convention, well-established rules from these anti-historical claims to the contrary.
and it should be avoided due to all the conventions that would govern any • The state legislatures’ applications fix
unknowns. The historical record shows convention today. the subject matter for a convention for
us that these assertions are plainly false. • A Convention of States is a meeting of proposing amendments. When two-
History tells us how a Convention of sovereign governments, and each thirds of the states apply on a given
States would operate. Interstate conven- state has one vote. Each state commis- subject, Congress must call the con-
tions were common during the Found- sioner is empowered and instructed vention. However, congressional
ing Era, and the rules and procedures by his or her state legislature. power is limited to setting the initial
for such conventions were widely time and place of meeting.
• A convention “call” cannot determine
accepted. (For more on this historical
how many delegates each state sends The language in Article V does not
precedent see Professor Natelson’s arti-
or how they are chosen. That is a mat- specify any procedural rules because
cle on page 19.) According to Professor
ter for each state legislature to decide. the Founders knew them so well. It
Robert Natelson, leading expert on the
Article V process, we know that: • As was true of earlier interstate gath- would have seemed unnecessary to
erings, the convention for proposing specify exactly how an interstate con-
• The “convention for proposing amendments is called to propose solu- vention would operate. These rules are
amendments” was consciously mod- tions to discrete, pre-assigned prob- well-established and would be upheld
eled on multi-state conventions held lems. There have been at least 36 by the courts today.
during the century leading up to the multi-state conventions in American
11ConventionofStates Handbook
“The best plan is for
state legislatures to
adopt applications
with operative
language that is
identical or as
close to identical
as possible.”
Action Steps for Legislators
To call a Convention of States, 34 state one state’s application be counted final count. The best plan is for state
legislatures must pass applications on toward the required 34-state majority, legislatures to adopt applications with
the same subject matter. Governors play or will it be considered distinct from operative language that is identical or as
no official role in this process. A simple those of other states? The great variety close to identical as possible. CSG’s
majority rule applies unless the state of applications for a proposed balanced model application is contained in the
legislature has adopted prior rules budget amendment demonstrates the Appendix on page 16. This model
requiring a different number. problem. Most legal scholars believe application was drafted in consultation
that a handful of the existing applica- with a wide range of constitutional
“Aggregation” is the most important
tions will be considered sufficiently dis- scholars, legislators, and citizen
issue for legislators to consider. Will
tinct to deny aggregation status in a activists.
12Action Steps for Citizens
ConventionofStates Handbook
Ultimately, the success of a Convention necting with state legislators, and build- • Attending legislative hearings
of States depends on the citizens of the ing the grassroots network. In each state to show support for a Convention
United States. The grassroots will be the legislative district, a District Captain of States.
engine that drives this project. If Amer- will be appointed to coordinate and • Organizing and speaking at events
icans are willing to sacrifice their time mobilize volunteers in their district. in your area as a representative
and energy, there is still a chance to halt for COS.
There are a number of ways volunteers
the tyrannical abuses of the federal
will be able to be involved in helping For more information about leadership
government.
move the project forward: job descriptions and volunteer opportu-
In each state, we will appoint three nities visit www.conventionofstates.com.
• Recruiting friends, family, neighbors
state-wide volunteer leaders: the State
and co-workers to join the effort. The Founders gave us the tools to
Director, Legislative Liaison, and
Coalitions Director. These individuals • Writing letters, making calls, and curb the federal abuse of power. It’s
will organize the movement across visiting state legislator’s offices to time we stand up and use them to pre-
the state, coordinating volunteers, con- encourage them to support a Conven- serve liberty—not only for ourselves
tion of States. but for posterity.
“The grassroots
will be the engine
that drives this
project.”
13Leadership of the Convention of States Project
ConventionofStates Handbook
O’Keefe’s book on the corruption of Congress, “Who Rules
Citizens for Self-Governance, America,” won praise from the late freedom advocate
Mark Meckler
President Milton Friedman.
B.A. in English Literature, San Diego O’Keefe also serves on the board of directors of the Wisconsin
State University Club for Growth, which has been active defending
Gov. Walker’s agenda during legislative campaigns, recall
J.D., with honors, University of the campaigns, and legislative races.
Pacific McGeorge School of Law
When he is not engaged in political activities, O’Keefe is a
Mark Meckler is the founder and President of Citizens for Self- private investor based in rural Wisconsin, where he and his
Governance, an organization created to support grassroots wife raised three children.
activism in taking power from Washington, D.C., and return-
ing it to its rightful owners, the citizens of the states. Meckler
is widely regarded as one of the most effective and well-net-
worked grassroots organizers in the nation and is regularly
Citizens for Self-Governance,
Michael Farris
called on for political commentary in all forms of media.
Senior Fellow for Constitutional
Meckler is the co-founder and former National Coordinator Studies, Head of Convention of
for the Tea Party Patriots, the largest tea party organization in States Project
the nation. He left the organization in February 2009 and
B.A. in Political Science, magna
founded CSG to work more broadly on expanding the self-
cum laude, Western Washington
governance movement beyond the partisan divide.
University
As the President of CSG, Meckler makes sure that all projects,
J.D., with honors, Gonzaga University School of Law
including Convention of States, are fully and appropriately
funded, staffed and managed, with a focus on strict steward- LL.M., with merit, in Public International Law, University
ship of donor dollars for maximum leverage and effect. of London
Meckler is also personally involved in all media and public
relations efforts. Michael Farris is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and
Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He
Meckler and his wife Patty live in Northern California with was the founding president of each organization.
their teenage children, where they share a love of outdoor
recreation and equestrian activities. Farris is a constitutional appellate litigator who has served as
lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, 8 federal
circuit courts, and the appellate courts of 13 states.
Eric O’Keefe He has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over 30 years
Citizens for Self-Governance, and is widely known for his leadership on homeschooling, reli-
Board of Directors gious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty.
Eric O’Keefe has a 25-year history as A prolific author, Farris has been recognized with a number of
an active strategist, board member, awards including the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship
and donor with organizations working by the Heritage Foundation and as one of the “Top 100
to advance individual liberty, promote Faces in Education for the 20th Century” by Education Week
citizen engagement and restore con- magazine.
stitutional governance. O’Keefe helped found U.S. Term Lim-
its in 1991 and, and in recent years, co-founded the Campaign Farris and his wife Vickie have 10 children and 17 grandchildren.
for Primary Accountability, the Health Care Compact Alliance,
and Citizens for Self-Governance. O’Keefe is also a founding
board member of the Center for Competitive Politics and Cit-
izens in Charge Foundation.
14Appendix
ConventionofStates Handbook
We want you to have all
of the information you
need to get involved.
Please see the materials
we’ve gathered for
you to be the most
informed person in
your community.
It’ll take hard work,
but it’s time to spread
the word!
Model Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
“Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the
‘Runaway Convention’ Myth” by Michael Farris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Excerpts from “Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the
Constitution’s ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’”
by Professor Robert G. Natelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15ConventionofStates Handbook
www.ConventionofStates.com Model Application for States
Application for a Convention of the States
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution
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 Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States
under Article V to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power,
Be it therefore resolved by the legislature of the State of _______________:
Section 1. The legislature of the State of _________ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article
V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing
amendments to the Constitution of the United States 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 for
members of Congress.
Section 2. The secretary of state is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the President and
Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives,
and copies to the members of the said Senate and House of Representatives from this State; also to transmit
copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their
cooperation.
Section 3. This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution
of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on
the same subject.
The Convention of States
is a project of
16Can We Trust the Constitution?
ConventionofStates Handbook
Answering The “Runaway Convention” Myth
Michael Farris, JD, LLM
Chancellor, Patrick Henry College
Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Citizens for Self-Governance
We can’t walk
boldly into our
future, without first
understanding
our history.
Some people contend that our Consti- ticipating at Annapolis concluded that a tion prior to the time that Congress
tution was illegally adopted as the broader convention was needed to acted to endorse it. The states told their
result of a “runaway convention.” address the nation’s concerns. They delegates that the purpose of the Con-
They make two claims: named the time and date (Philadelphia; vention was the one stated in the
second Monday in May). Annapolis Convention resolution: “to
1. The convention delegates were
The Annapolis delegates said they were render the constitution of the Federal
instructed to merely amend the
going to work to “procure the concur- Government adequate for the exigencies
Articles of Confederation, but they
rence of the other States in the appoint- of the Union.”
wrote a whole new document.
ment of Commissioners.” The goal of Congress voted to endorse this Conven-
2. The ratification process was the upcoming convention was “to render tion on February 21, 1787. It did not pur-
improperly changed from 13 state the constitution of the Federal Govern- port to “call” the Convention or give
legislatures to 9 state ratification ment adequate for the exigencies of the instructions to the delegates. It merely
conventions. Union.” proclaimed that “in the opinion of
What role was Congress to play in call- Congress, it is expedient” for the Con-
The Delegates Obeyed ing the Convention? None. The vention to be held in Philadelphia on the
Annapolis delegates sent copies of their date informally set by the Annapolis
Convention and formally approved by 7
Their Instructions from
resolution to Congress solely “from
state legislatures.
the States
The claim that the delegates disobeyed motives of respect.”
their instructions is based on the idea What authority did the Articles of Con- Ultimately, 12 states appointed dele-
that Congress called the Constitutional federation give to Congress to call such gates. Ten of these states followed the
Convention. Proponents of this view a Convention? None. The power of phrasing of the Annapolis Convention
assert that Congress limited the dele- Congress under the Articles was strictly with only minor variations in wording
gates to amending the Articles of Con- limited, and there was no theory of (“render the Federal Constitution
federation. A review of legislative implied powers. The states possessed adequate”). Two states, New York and
history clearly reveals the error of this residual sovereignty which included the Massachusetts, followed the formula
claim. The Annapolis Convention, not power to call this convention. stated by Congress (“solely amend the
Congress, provided the political impetus Articles” as well as “render the Federal
Seven state legislatures agreed to send
for calling the Constitutional Conven- Constitution adequate”).
delegates to the Constitutional Conven-
tion. The delegates from the 5 states par- Continued to page 18
17Can We Trust The Constitution? Answering The “Runaway Convention” Myth
ConventionofStates Handbook
Continued from page 17
Every student of history should know islatures. Moreover, the Annapolis Con- than state legislatures. This was done in
that the instructions for delegates came vention and a clear majority of the states accord with the preamble of the Consti-
from the states. In Federalist 40, James insisted that any amendments coming tution—the Supreme Law of the Land
Madison answered the question of “who from the Constitutional Convention would be ratified in the name of “We the
gave the binding instructions to the del- would have to be approved in this same People” rather than “We the States.”
egates.” He said: “The powers of the manner—by Congress and all 13 state But before this change in ratification
convention ought, in strictness, to be legislatures. could be valid, all 13 state legislatures
determined by an inspection of the com- The reason for this rule can be found in would also have to consent to the new
missions given to the members by their the principles of international law. At the method. All 13 state legislatures did just
respective constituents [i.e. the states].” time, the states were sovereigns. The this by calling conventions of the people
He then spends the balance of Federalist Articles of Confederation were, in to vote on the merits of the Constitution.
40 proving that the delegates from all 12 essence, a treaty between 13 sovereign Twelve states held popular elections to
states properly followed the directions nations. Normally, the only way changes vote for delegates. Rhode Island made
they were given by each of their states. in a treaty can be ratified is by the every voter a delegate and held a series
According to Madison, the February approval of all parties to the treaty. of town meetings to vote on the Consti-
21st resolution from Congress was
However, a treaty can provide for some- tution. Thus, every state legislature con-
merely “a recommendatory act.”
thing less than unanimous approval if all sented to the new ratification process
The States, not Congress, called the the parties agree to a new approval thereby validating the Constitution’s
Constitutional Convention. They told process before it goes into effect. This is requirements for ratification.
their delegates to render the Federal exactly what the Founders did. Those who claim to be constitutionalists
Constitution adequate for the exigencies
When the Convention sent its draft of while contending that the Constitution
of the Union. And that is exactly what
the Constitution to Congress, it also rec- was illegally adopted are undermining
they did.
ommended a new ratification process. themselves. It is like saying George
Congress approved both the Constitu- Washington was a great American hero,
The Ratification Process tion itself and the new process. but he was also a British spy. I stand
Along with changing the number of with the integrity of our Founders who
properly drafted and properly ratified
Was Properly Changed
The Articles of Confederation required required states from 13 to 9, the new rat-
any amendments to be approved by ification process required that state con- the Constitution.
Congress and ratified by all 13 state leg- ventions ratify the Constitution rather
History tells the story.
The Constitution was legally
adopted.
Now, let’s move on to getting
our nation back to the
greatness the Founders
originally envisioned.
18[The following is an excerpt from Professor Robert G. Natelson’s Florida Law Review article titled below. For brevity all
citations have been removed. It can be downloaded in full at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2044296.
ConventionofStates Handbook
These excerpts are reprinted here with the permission of the Florida Law Review and Professor Robert G. Natelson.]
Founding-Era Conventions and
the Meaning of the Constitution’s
“Convention For Proposing Amendments”
Professor Robert G. Natelson
The Independence Institute; Montana Policy Institute
April 22, 2012
65 Fla. L. Rev. 615 (2013)
them. In 1660 a “convention Parlia- During the run-up to Independence,
ment” had recalled the Stuart line, in the conventions within particular colonies
Overview Of Prior
person of Charles II, to the throne of issued protests, operated as legislatures
American Experience
England. A 1689 convention Parliament when the de jure legislature had been
With Conventions […]
A. Conventions Before had adopted the English Bill of Rights, dissolved, and removed British officials
the Constitution declared the throne vacant, and invited and governed in their absence. After
The Founders understood a political William and Mary to fill it. Also in Independence, conventions wrote sev-
“convention” to be an assembly, other 1689, Americans resorted to at least eral state constitutions.
than a legislature, designed to undertake four conventions in three different
Those state constitutions also resorted
prescribed governmental functions. The colonies as mechanisms to replace
to conventions as elements of their
convention was a familiar and approved unpopular colonial governments, and in
amendment procedures. The Pennsyl-
device: several generations of English- 1719 they held yet another.
vania Constitution of 1776 and the
men and Americans had resorted to
Continued to page 20
“The Founders understood a
political ‘convention’ to
be an assembly, other than
a legislature, designed
to undertake prescribed
governmental functions.”
What does that mean
for a modern Convention
of States?
19Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s
ConventionofStates Handbook
“Convention For Proposing Amendments” Continued from page 19
Vermont Constitution of 1786 both and New Jersey. The Dominion proved in 1744 at Lancaster, Pennsylvania; in
authorized amendments conventions unpopular, and in 1689 colonial con- 1745, 1746, 1751, and 1754 at Albany;
limited as to subjects by a “council of ventions swept it away; nevertheless, and in 1768 at Fort Stanwix (Rome),
censors.” The Massachusetts Constitu- northeastern governments continued to New York.
tion of 1780 provided for amendment confer together. Many of these meetings
The assembly at Lancaster became one
by convention. The Georgia Constitu- were conclaves of colonial governors,
of the more noted. Participants included
tion of 1777 required the legislature to usually conferring on issues of defense
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and
call a convention to draft constitutional against French Canada and her
several Indian tribes. The proceedings
amendments whose gist had been pre- allied Indian tribes, rather than conven-
lasted from June 22 to July 4, 1744, and
scribed by a majority of counties. tions of diplomatic delegations. An
produced the Treaty of Lancaster. Even
example from outside the Northeast
Conventions within individual colonies more important, however, was the
was the meeting of five governors
or states represented the people, towns, seven-colony Albany Congress of 1754,
held at Alexandria, Virginia in 1755.
or counties. Another sort of “conven- whose proceedings are discussed in
Many others, however, were full-dress
tion” was a gathering of three or more Part IV.A.
conventions among commissioners
American governments under protocols
appointed from three or more colonies. The most famous inter-colonial conven-
modeled on international diplomatic
These meetings were usually, but tions were the Stamp Act Congress of
practice. These multi-government
not always, held under the sanction of 1765 and the First Continental Con-
conventions were comprised of delega-
royal authorities. gress of 1774, discussed in Parts IV.B
tions from each participating govern-
and IV.C. As for the Second Continental
ment, including, on some occasions, To be specific: Three colonies met at
Congress (1775-81), participants might
Indian tribes. Before Independence, Boston in 1689 to discuss defense
initially have thought of it as a conven-
such gatherings often were called “con- issues. The following year, the acting
tion, but it is not so classified here
gresses,” because “congress” was an New York lieutenant governor called,
because it really served as a continuing
established term for a gathering of sov- without royal sanction, a defense con-
legislature.
ereignties. After Independence, they vention of most of the continental
were more often called “conventions,” colonies to meet in New York City. The After the colonies had declared them-
presumably to avoid confusion with the meeting was held on May 1, 1690, with selves independent states, they contin-
Continental and Confederation Con- New York, Massachusetts Bay, Con- ued to gather in conventions. All of
gresses. But both before and after Inde- necticut, and Plymouth colonies in these meetings were called to address
pendence the terms could be employed attendance. A similar gathering specific issues of common concern.
interchangeably. occurred in 1693 in New York, this time Northeastern states convened twice in
under Crown auspices. Other defense Providence, Rhode Island—in Decem-
Multi-government congresses or con-
conventions were held in New York ber, 1776 and January, 1777, and again
ventions were particularly common in
City in 1704, Boston in 1711, Albany in in 1781. Other conventions of north-
the Northeast, perhaps because govern-
1744 and 1745, and New York City in eastern states met in Springfield, Mas-
ments in that region had a history of
1747. The New England colonies held sachusetts (1777); New Haven,
working together. In 1643 the four
yet another in 1757. Connecticut (1778); Hartford, Con-
colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth
necticut (1779 and 1780); and Boston,
Colony, Connecticut, and New Haven In addition to defense conventions,
Massachusetts (1780). Conventions that
formed the United Colonies of New there were conventions serving as
included states outside the Northeast
England. Essentially a joint standing diplomatic meetings among colonies
included those at York Town, Pennsyl-
committee of colonial legislatures, this and sovereign Indian tribes, particularly
vania (1777), Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
association was not always active, but the Iroquois. There were at least ten
nia (1780 and, of course, 1787),
endured at least formally until 1684. In such conclaves between 1677 and 1768
and Annapolis, Maryland (1786). There
1695, the Crown created the Dominion involving three or more colonies. Those
also were abortive calls for multi-
of New England, a unified government ten included gatherings in 1677, 1689,
state conventions in Fredericksburg,
imposed on New England, New York, 1694, and 1722 at Albany, New York;
20Virginia, Charleston, South Carolina, “convention of committees.” It was to presumed to set the voting rules while
and elsewhere. be a forum in which state delegations calling a third Hartford convention, two
ConventionofStates Handbook
could meet on the basis of sovereign of the four states invited refused to par-
Thus, the Constitutional Convention
equality. Its purpose is to put the “states ticipate. In the few instances in which
of 1787—far from being the unique
in convention assembled” on equal convention calls suggested how sover-
event it is often assumed to be—
footing with Congress in proposing eign governments should select their
was but one in a long line of
amendments. commissioners, some of those govern-
similar gatherings.
ments disregarded the suggestions, but
Founding-Era practice informs us that
their commissioners were seated any-
Article V applications and calls may ask
way. This record therefore suggests that
for either a plenipotentiary convention
Conclusion: What
a convention call, as the Constitution
or one limited to pre-defined subjects.
Prior Conventions
uses the term, may not include legally-
Most American multi-government gath-
Tell Us About The
binding terms other than time, place,
erings had been limited to one or more
and subject. However, the occasional
Convention For
subjects, and the ratification-era record
Founding-Era practice of making calls
Proposing Amendments
As noted above, Founding-Era customs shows affirmatively that the Founders
assist us in understanding the attributes and applications conditional and of
expected that most conventions for pro-
and procedures inherent in a “conven- rescinding them suggests that
posing amendments would be similarly
tion for proposing amendments,” and Article V applications and calls also
limited. Founding-Era practice informs
the powers and prerogatives of the may be made conditional or rescinded.
us also that commissioners at an
actors in the process. This Conclusion In accordance with Founding-Era prac-
amendments convention were to oper-
draws on the historical material col- tice, states are free to honor or reject
ate under agency law and remain within
lected above, together with the brief calls, as they choose.
the limits of their commissions. Neither
constitutional text, to outline those the record of Founding Era conventions Universal pre-constitutional practice
attributes and procedures. nor the ratification debates offer signif- tells us that states may select, commis-
The previous record of American con- icant support for the modern claim that sion, instruct, and pay their delegates as
ventions made it clear that a convention a convention cannot be limited. they wish, and may alter their instruc-
for proposing amendments was to be, tions and recall them. Although the
The only Founding Era efforts to insert
like its immediate predecessors, an states may define the subject and
in a convention call prescriptions other
inter-governmental diplomatic gather- instruct their commissioners to vote in
than time, place, and subject-matter
ing—a “convention of the states” or a certain way, the convention as a whole
were abortive. When Massachusetts
Continued to page 22
“History and the
constitutional text
inform us that a
convention for proposing
amendments is, like
its direct predecessors,
a multi-government
proposing convention.”
21Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s
ConventionofStates Handbook
“Convention For Proposing Amendments” Continued from page 21
makes its own rules, elects its own ing amendments is, like its direct pred- • During the Founding Era a call
officers, establishes and staffs its own ecessors, a multi-government proposing could come from one or more states,
committees, and sets its own time convention. This suggests that an from Congress, or from another con-
of adjournment. amendments convention is deliberative vention. Article V prescribes that
in much the same way its predecessors the call for an amendments conven-
All Founding-Era conventions were
were. This suggests further that when a tion comes only from Congress,
deliberative bodies. This was true to a
legislature attempts in its application to but is mandatory when two thirds of
certain extent even of conventions
compel the convention to merely vote the states have submitted similar
whose formal power was limited to an
up-or-down on prescribed language, it applications.
up-or-down vote. When Rhode Island
is not utilizing the application power in
lawmakers submitted the Constitution • During the Founding Era, one propos-
a valid way.
to a statewide referendum in town ing convention (that of 1787) had
meetings rather than to a ratifying con- Prevailing convention practice during attempted to specify how the states
vention, a principal criticism was that the Founding Era permitted a few pro- were to review its recommendations.
the referendum lacked the deliberative cedural variations, and it is precisely in Article V clarifies that an amend-
qualities of the convention. Critics con- these areas that the text of Article V pre- ments convention does not have this
tended that a ratifying convention, scribes procedure. Specifically: power.
unlike a referendum, provided a central
• During the Founding Era, multi-state Thus do text and history fit together to
forum for a full hearing and debate and
conventions could be authorized guide us in the use of Article V.
exchange of information among people
merely to propose solutions for state
from different locales. They further
approval, or, less commonly, to
contended that the convention offered a
resolve issues; in the latter case each
way to supplement the affirmative or
state “pledged its faith” to comply
negative vote with non-binding recom-
with the outcome. Article V clarifies
mendations for amendments.
that an amendments convention only
Before and during the Founding Era, may propose. At the Constitutional
American multi-government conven- Convention, the Framers rejected
tions enjoyed even more deliberative proffered language to create an
freedom than ratifying conventions— amendments convention that could
as, indeed, befits the dignity of a diplo- resolve.
matic gathering of sovereignties. No
• During the Founding Era, a proposing
multi-government convention was lim-
convention could be plenipotentiary
ited to an up-or-down vote. Each was
or limited. Article V clarifies that nei-
assigned discrete problems to work on,
ther the states nor Congress may call
but within that sphere each enjoyed
plenipotentiary conventions under
freedom to deliberate, advise, consult,
Article V, because that Article author-
confer, recommend, and propose.
izes only amendments to “this Consti-
Multi-government conventions also
tution,” and, further, it proscribes
could refuse to propose. Essentially,
certain amendments.
they served as task forces where dele-
gates from different states could share • During the Founding Era, an “appli-
information, debate, compare notes, and cation” for a multi-government con-
try to hammer out creative solutions to vention could refer either to (1) a
the problems posed to them. request from a state to Congress to
call, or (2) the call itself. Article V
History and the constitutional text
clarifies that an application has only
inform us that a convention for propos-
the former meaning.
22Connect with Convention of States
Website: ConventionofStates.com
Email: info@conventionofstates.com
Phone: (540) 441-7227
Facebook: Facebook.com/ConventionofStates
Twitter: @COSProject
The Convention of States
is a project of
Connect with Citizens for Self-Governance
Website: SelfGovern.com
Email: info@selfgovern.com
Phone: (512) 943-2014
Facebook: Facebook.com/Citizens4SG
Twitter: @Self_GovernanceYou can also read
