As a trainer for Level 1 of the Center for Self Governance and the Chair of the Cape County Tea Party, I’m a constructionist / originalist when it comes to the Constitution. Therefore, when talk of an Article V Convention comes about, I feel that my support of the Constitution must extend to the Convention as well. If I support the brilliance of the Founders in the creation of this republic and the limitation of the Federal Government, I must support them in their correct prediction that the Federal Government would become and out-of-control behemoth (the rottweiler), and the people would have but one arrow left in their quiver: The Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments To The Constitution.
However, I think those who advocate the current effort at a Convention are wrong to believe that they can limit the topics of the proposed amendments at the Convention… …at least that’s the way I read the Constitution. Congress can only call the Convention, and the Convention is for Proposing Amendments… …no qualifiers… …no adjectives.
I also feel any application by a state that attempts to limit the topics of the convention is invalid. Missouri has called for an Article V Convention only if it’s for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress can only open a Convention for Proposing Amendments (sans specific topics). Therefore Missouri’s application is self-invalidating as soon as a Convention opens for Proposing Amendments.
But, I’m no constitutional scholar like BHO… …I’m just a computer geek.
Here is some more information received from my friend Karen on the Constitutional Convention:
The proposed “Article V Convention” is nothing new. It was first proposed by Ford and Rockefeller in 1963. It has been tried multiple times in my lifetime, with each attempt given a different name. Conservatives have succeeded in blocking it each time. History of these attempts are archived here.
An Q&A discussion of the subject by a Constitutional scholar, and an in-depth article with references, using the Framer’s original source documents can be read here. If there are questions, there is a place to contact the author.
It should be noted that since the 1787 Convention of States, the rules for using this method have not been changed. The 2/3 ratification rule does not apply to this alternate method. Still, only 9 states are required for ratification, as originally stated.
The framers did not follow the rules in the Articles of Confederation that said all 13 states must agree in order to ratify a new Constitution. Since we were governed by men of integrity when it came to content of the Constitution, we dodged a bullet.
How will those rules be changed, if the ones financing and promoting this new Convention of states are in control? Will they insist the old Convention rule of ratification by 9 states be enforced?
Like I said, I support the idea of the Convention, but the Conservatives and Libertarians better be ready for the Progressive cancer that will invade its proceedings.