IBX News

There are several misinformed organizations and people that have suggested that several states in the Union have agreed to support a "constitutional convention."

Fortunately, this is not correct, as support for such a proposal might meet the criteria for sedition.

The United States of America has a constitution. That document is imperfect, but by its own words it intends to “form a more perfect union.” The founders included two built-in mechanisms under Article V of the Constitution for moving this union toward perfection through amendments. A Convention of States is one of those mechanisms. It is not sedition. It is improvement through rule of law.

Some people are concerned that a Convention of States approach to amending the Constitution will result in the delegates going rogue at such a convention, throwing away the Constitution, and starting again.

We at COS Action have read a missive from one such misinformed individual, namely Representative Keith Kidwell, NC House district 79. Representative Kidwell misidentified a Convention of States as a constitutional convention, like the one that created this country in its current form in 1787. Our founders, having written the Constitution, did not have to do their research or read books intending to create frightening narratives. Instead, they put guardrails in the document they produced.

The guardrails include the following passage, cited as Article V. It reads,

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, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Rep. Kidwell is not a Constitutional scholar, but as a sitting representative of the people of North Carolina, he ought to understand the basics of the nation’s founding document before drawing conclusions and developing opinions on what it does and does not provide.

Ms. Hall’s book, Sovereign Duty, accurately depicts how the founders created the Constitution. What she does not articulate is how a Convention of States would work. A Convention of States is exactly what the bolded section of the article above indicates. It is a mechanism in which the states—not the Congress—propose amendments to "this Constitution"—not create a constitution—that three-quarters of the states must ratify before they become amendments. It is that simple.

Regardless of what the President Congress determined long ago, the founders determined in 1787 that states can run a Convention of States. The executive branch ahs nothing to do with it, and Congress's role is ministerial only. In fact, state executives have nothing to do with it.  The founders intended that the states’ representatives—those elected officials closest to the people they serve—can call for and participate in a Convention of States.

Once amendments are proposed, those same individuals who respond most directly to their constituents at the state level, will vote to ratify the resulting amendments or the amendments can be ratified by state conventions. There is no legal way around it. A Convention of States is not a constitutional convention. It is a meeting of delegates appointed by the state legislatures who agree to take one step closer to forming a more perfect union.

It is possible that the President, certain members of Congress,  organizations like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and George Soros, in fact, are not misinformed. Instead, the situation might be worse. They might be intentionally misusing terms to create confusion to reduce support for a Convention of States.

Why would they want to do such a thing? Perhaps, because a Convention of States resides outside their control and could reduce their grasp on control. Some people would rather break something than lose control of it.

Darryl W. Roberts is a U.S. Navy veteran and American patriot. He is a Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy Analytics and Evaluation Methods and a Master of Science in Information Systems. He is an evaluation scientist who investigates the relationships between public policy interventions and their intended or unintended outcomes. As a professor, he teaches public policy, economics, computer science, statistics, psychology, and research methods. Dr. Roberts volunteers with the North Carolina Convention of States, because he thinks it is the only way to return the government of our nation to the people. 

Darryl Roberts is a volunteer with Convention of States North Carolina.

Article originally published at conventionofstates.com.