Reply to recent editorial

     Sun Sentinel’s Editorial and Article V

    As co-founder of FOAVC and longtime advocate for Article V, the Sentinel’s editorial against a convention is understandable—just look at the legislator’s proposal language: “Be it further resolved [the resolution] is inherently risky since there are no rules for [a convention].” The editorial thus quite rightly concludes a federal convention without rules “has the potential to do anything.” Yet, hear me as someone knowledgable, because a convention is a body of people to discuss amendment language, then no rules are needed based on the rule of human nature; when delegates can simply and only build consensus about fundamental change, then it’s nothing more than what Americans have already been doing the past twenty years on Internet comment threads. Indeed, we’ve had informal discussion about amendments for generations before the Internet and if someone asked you your favorite amendment today—Campaign finance/electoral reform? No matter the idea, it must get approval from 7.5 out of 10 Americans because it must be ratified by 75% of the nation. All the Article V Convention (a proper noun) effects is change from informal discussion into formal discussion, and in a natural progression of events, national consensus.

    There is currently a resolution in the House Judiciary Committee (H.R 101 [117th Congress]), which if passed, would issue the convention call forthwith (immediately/without delay). Let’s imagine it passes and the call is issued. Michigan and Indiana have already instituted legislation, that if so, its state will elect or select its delegates (respectively); meaning other states will follow Michigan’s lead and elect delegates; but however delegates get to the convention—election or selection—and regardless of parliamentary procedure—the convention can only do one thing: debate amendment proposals; and the other three branches of government will intervene if anything other than that takes place. Thus, the ultimate rule of Article V—delegates can discuss ideas for change, but if they do anything other, one or all three branches of government will step in (even state governments have power to vacate a delegation if it goes rouge).

   Here’s another rule about a convention never mentioned: if we have one, it will adjourn. It will adjourn because at some point the majority of delegates will want to return home to family and friends. Once adjourned nothing will have changed about the Constitution, nothing will have been re-written or added unto. Then the Congress must assign a mode of ratification to proposals—by state legislature or state convention—which will probably take weeks. So the notion that a convention is where anything can happen, or we might damage the Constitution, is utterly bogus: and when you think about it, a federal convention is where the people can’t lose in a process of building national consensus; the only Americans who lose in that process are those connected to the status quo. Why? Because the Framers who hammered out the 1787 Federal Constitution didn’t trust each other (slave-owners and abolitionists in the same building), and they all knew what history had taught for centuries, and what we know today—governments become corrupt. In other words, the Article V Convention is a peaceable reformation of the current status quo, and the genius of our highest law is common sense. When things get too confusing, you call a time-out to formally discuss the current approach to existence—you know, like responsible adults. That’s all a convention under Article V is folks, a time-out to formally discuss.

   Be careful what you wish for? Lots of Americans are wishing government somehow ends the practice of billion dollar election campaigns for public servants, wishing for a convention means you think it’s time for a formal discussion about what ideas could possibly get 7.5 of 10 Americans to say Yes. If only for the entertainment value?

    For feminists reading, a convention is surest way to protections in view of recent trends in Supreme Court rulings. Amendments solve injustice decisively, no one today questions a woman’s right to vote, no one tomorrow will question a woman’s right to choose.

    “[The Article V Convention is] just one more political sideshow to divert attention from major challenges in education, health care and the environment,” the Sentinel’s editorial states. The reply in metaphor is that when a main breaks, you don’t figure out a better mop, you fix the main. That is obviously what we need to do today, and wherever you are on the political spectrum, definitely there are things 75% of us can agree on today (campaign/finance/electoral reform?).

    “Thirty-four of the 50 states must call for a convention to be held,” the editorial states, but FOAVC shows hundreds of applications on record, and that the states have legally satisfied the convention clause of Article V many times over. If you’re for the Constitution but against a convention, then you’re actually not for the Constitution.