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: the Runaway Convention

Original CoS Document (slug): [[https://conventionofstates.com/it-ll-run-away|it-ll-run-away]]

Login Required to view? No

Created: 2022-07-06 01:00:51

Updated: 2024-07-16 04:40:21

Published: 2023-07-07 01:00:00

Converted: 2025-04-14T21:18:08.928697065


----

**Myth**

Any convention held today will almost certainly be a runaway convention because even the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was a runaway convention.  And those men were of the highest moral character.  If they couldn't keep their convention on track, what hope do we have?

 

**Reality**

The Philadelphia convention was not a runaway convention.  The delegates obeyed [[https://www.consource.org/document/convention-delegates-credentials-1787/|their instructions]] as evidenced by the fact that no state took any action of disapprobation towards its delegates.

Objection Your Honor!  Asked and Answered \\
\\
The charges levied against that convention are as old as the Constitution itself. There's nothing new under the sun.

Madison devotes the entirety of [[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed40.asp|Federalist 40]] to justify the actions of the convention and explain how the delegates stayed within the confines of their commissions.

Objection #1: The delegates were not authorized to propose a national structure for the union.  They were restricted to revising and amending a federal structure only.

This is the first point Madison addresses.  He says they //were// authorized to propose a mixed structure, partly federal, partly national, and that this authorization could be determined "by an inspection of the commissions given to the members" of the convention.  And since these commissions all referred back to either the [[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0556|Annapolis convention]] or the [[https://www.consource.org/document/resolution-of-congress-1787-2-17/|Congressional resolution]], "it would be sufficient to recur to these particular acts."

The Annapolis convention recommended the states...

> devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Fœderal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.

The [[https://www.consource.org/document/resolution-of-congress-1787-2-17/|Congressional opinion]] was for the convention to establish "in these states a firm national government."

So the convention was authorized

> to frame a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, adequate to the EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT, and OF THE UNION; and to reduce the articles of Confederation into such form as to accomplish these purposes.

Objection #2: The convention didn't revise and amend the Articles of Confederation; it proposed a whole new constitution.

Madison addresses this claim also.  He wonders aloud if 

> no ALTERATIONS or PROVISIONS in THE ARTICLES OF THE CONFEDERATION could possibly mould them into a national and adequate government; into such a government as has been proposed by the convention?

Changing the title - no biggie

Madison says that simply changing the title of the document from the Articles of Confederation to The Constitution of the United States "could never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power."

Next, as to the extent of the changes recommended by the convention, Madison notes that 

> ALTERATIONS in the body of the instrument are expressly authorized. NEW PROVISIONS therein are also expressly authorized.

Therefore the convention had the "power to change the title; to insert new articles; to alter old ones."  Given this power, Madison says that "so long as a part of the old articles remain," those who claim the convention usurped authority

> ought at least to mark the boundary between authorized and usurped innovations; between that degree of change which lies within the compass of ALTERATIONS AND FURTHER PROVISIONS, and that which amounts to a TRANSMUTATION of the government

**There was no** **limit **on the "revise and amend" charge.

(Spoiler alert: That means proposing a new mode of ratification was within the authority of the convention.)

Dramatic changes were expected by all.

Madison notes that 

> The States would never have appointed a convention with so much solemnity, nor described its objects with so much latitude, if some SUBSTANTIAL reform had not been in contemplation.

**Do whatever it takes**

Today, we would paraphrase the charge to that convention as: Do whatever it takes to keep the union together".

**But they changed the rules!**

Convention opponents today like to point out how the Constitutional Convention changed the mode of ratification.  That the founders essentially cheated the process because they knew they would never get unanimous buy-in from all the states.

This is a myth deserving of its own articles.  

See [[https://conventionofstates.com/news/madison-s-confession|Myth Busting: Madison Confessed to Cheating!]]

and [[https://conventionofstates.com/news/they-changed-the-rules|Myth Busting: They Changed the Rules!]]

**[[https://conventionofstates.com/news/the-moab|< Back to every other argument]]**