Wiki_QA__##

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Title: Myth-busting in McKinney, Texas

Original CoS Document (slug): [[https://conventionofstates.com/tx-myth-busting-in-mckinney-texas|tx-myth-busting-in-mckinney-texas]]

Login Required to view? No

Created: 2022-07-16 16:09:15

Updated: 2022-09-16 00:48:11

Published: 2022-07-17 03:00:00

Converted: 2025-04-14T21:18:26.679354954


----




Convention of States accepted an invitation from the Collin County Republican Party in McKinney on July 12 to answer some questions regarding the principles that guide COS. Members of the John Birch Society were also present in order to offer their insight on several issues.{{https://content.conventionofstates.com/cosaction-prod/public/content/images/56441/56441_original.jpg?376x282}}

Brent Dunklau and John van Compernolle were the COS speakers for the evening, passing the mic back and forth like a well-oiled machine. Dunklau was the primary speaker as he went through several common COS myths for the Collin County Patriots. Dunklau discussed the concern of many that delegates to an Article V convention would rewrite the Constitution. Many are concerned with the myth that our Founders disregarded the instructions of their various legislatures when they wrote the U.S. Constitution instead of simply correcting the Articles of Confederation. Dunklau explained, using Federalist 40 and the directions of the legislatures themselves, that the Founders did indeed act within the prerogatives granted to them by far-sighted state governments who expected major reforms.

One of the members of JBS mentioned the myth that the Founders disregarded the requirement of unanimous consent to change the rules of adoption of any major reform to the new and struggling country's governing documents. Dunklau explained that as all 13 states ratified the rule change allowing for a two-thirds majority to be adequate to adopt new laws. This was unanimous and therefore, the two-thirds ratification requirement in the Constitution was completely legal and accepted. In this way, the {{https://content.conventionofstates.com/cosaction-prod/public/content/images/56442/56442_original.jpg?407x305}}Constitution could be ratified by this new threshold, and the states retained their rightful sovereignty.

Concerning the question of control in such an Article V convention, Dunklau clarified, based on the precedence of at least 38 state conventions over the past 250 years, that each state will receive one vote in the convention process, thus eliminating the idea that more populous states could control the convention. The purpose of Article V is to enable both the sovereign states and Congress to propose amendments with equal rights and authority. But to eliminate congressional control over a convention of the several states, Congress must set the time, place and purpose of the convention based on the petition of the several states, but their power ends at that point.

Because the Necessary and Proper Clause is located in and applies only to powers enumerated in Article I, the idea of applying them to Article V and the amendment process would be unconstitutional.

The last issue discussed by Dunklau and van Compernolle was the sometimes volatile subject of nullification. Drawing extensively on the writings of Madison, Dunklau explained that nullification not only fails generally of wisdom, but also does not follow constitutional law. In fact, he recalled the rejection of nullification by Massachusetts when the Bay State reminded the young country that the preferred and constitutional remedy for such disagreements was an Article V convention.{{https://content.conventionofstates.com/cosaction-prod/public/content/images/56443/56443_original.jpg?313x235}}

The presentation was well-received by the Collin County Patriots, but JBS didn't seem impressed. In spite of words expressing similar views, the attitude of the two groups--COS and JBS--were striking in their dissimilarities. 

Through a Convention of the States, amendments to the U.S. Constitution would be proposed that would limit the federal government's power, require term limits, and demand fiscal responsibility, placing the power back in the hands of the states and the people respectively, as our Founders originally intended.

To learn more, visit the COS website [[https://conventionofstates.com/|here]] and see how you can support freedom by signing your name to the COS petition.