Title: COS Executive Summary
Original CoS Document (slug): cos-executive-summary
Login Required to view? No
Attached File: COS_Executive_Summary.pdf
Created: 2018-04-28 20:51:02
Updated: 2019-04-28 23:00:07
Published: 2018-04-28 20:00:00
Converted: 2025-04-14T19:30:46.417339344
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CONVENTION OF STATES PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The root of the frustration felt by citizens across America is that our federal government
does whatever it wants, and there is nothing ordinary citizens can do about it. It doesn’t seem to
matter who they send to represent them in Washington, D.C. They have lost control of their
government.
This is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution, and a convention of states to
propose constitutional amendments is that solution. It is the people’s final “check” on D.C.,
exercised through their state legislators; the ingenious plan of the Founders to make state
legislators’ ambitions (for state power) counteract federal officials’ ambitions (for federal
power)–for the good of the people.
While there is nothing “wrong” with the Constitution, the problems we now face are
undeniably the result of constitutional interpretations that capitalize on ambiguities in the
wording of certain phrases (i.e., the general welfare clause). Conservatives like to say that
federal officials “ignore” the Constitution, but what they actually do is creatively “lawyer”
around its limitations. We can restore the federal government to its proper, limited place only by
clarifying the original meaning of certain constitutional phrases through constitutional
amendments—effectively overturning bad Supreme Court precedents that have eviscerated our
federal system.
The Convention of States Project’s resolution seeks to do this by using the tool given to
the states in Article V. It calls for an Article V convention to propose amendments that
“impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the
federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of
Congress.”
HOW THE PROCESS WORKS
Article V of the Constitution provides two ways in which amendments may be proposed:
Congress may propose them, or Congress must call a “convention for proposing amendments”
upon application of 2/3s of the state legislatures (34 state legislatures). Regardless of which way
amendments are proposed, they must always be ratified by 3/4s of the states (38 states).
Some say that because Article Five itself is silent as to the procedural details of a
convention, we have no idea how the meeting would function. But while it’s true that there has
2
never been an Article Five convention, per se, the states have met in conventions at least 33
times. There is a clear precedent for how these meetings work.
In fact, many of the Framers had attended one or more conventions, and the basic
procedures were always the same. For instance, voting at an interstate convention is always done
as states, with each state getting one vote, regardless of population or the number of delegates in
attendance. State legislatures choose and instruct their delegates to the convention.
The more detailed, parliamentary rules of the convention are decided at the convention
itself. The Convention of States Project has a complete, detailed draft of convention rules ready
for the convention to move for adoption, available here.
BACKGROUND ON CONVENTION OF STATES PROJECT MOVEMENT
●
The Convention of States Project was Founded by Mark Meckler, Co-Founder of Tea
Party Patriots and President of Citizens for Self-Governance, and Michael Farris,
Founder of Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, and
current CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom.
• In addition to retired Senators Tom Coburn and Sen. Jim DeMint, who now serve as
Senior Advisers to the organization, major supporters include Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov.
Greg Abbott, The Honorable Jeb Bush, The Honorable Ben Carson, Mark Levin,
Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, The Honorable Mike Huckabee, The Honorable Sarah
Palin, Gov. John Kasich, The Honorable Bobby Jindal, Col. Allen West, Sen. Ron
Johnson, The Honorable Kenneth Cuccinelli, Sheriff David Clarke, Lt. Bill Cowan,
David Barton, Rep. Jeff Duncan, Sen. Ben Sasse, Sen. Jim Talent, Ben Shapiro,
Charlie Kirk, and Pete Hegseth.
• Twelve states have already passed the Convention of States Project’s application
(Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona,
North Dakota, Texas, and Missouri).
• The Convention of States Project application has been introduced in 48 states over the
past 3 years. In addition to the 12 states that have achieved final passage of the
application, seven (7) other states have passed it one legislative chamber.
• Conservative legal heavyweights supporting the Convention of States Project include
Robert P. George, NFIB v. Sebelius challenge architect Randy Barnett, Bush 41
Counsel Ambassador C. Boyden Gray, Mat Staver (VP and Prof. of Law at Liberty
University), Andrew McCarthy (former. Chief Asst. U.S. Atty. for NY, who lead
terrorism prosecution against the “Blink Sheik”), Dr. John Eastman, (Dir. Ctr. For
Const. Jurisprudence – Chapman Univ. Fowler School of Law), Charles Cooper of
Cooper and Kirk, LLC, (clerk for Scotus Justice Rhenquist, and Asst. Atty. Gen. for
Office of Legal Counsel, Reagan Administration), Professor Nelson Lund (2nd
Amendment scholar, George Mason University School of Law), and the world’s foremost
expert on the history of Article V and interstate conventions, Professor Robert
3
Natelson. All of these individuals (and others) serve on the Legal Board of Reference
advising the project.
• In July, 2015, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) adopted the Convention
of States Project application for an Article V Convention as model policy language for
the states.
• Within weeks of its formation in 2015, the Convention of States Caucus boasted a
membership of over 200 committed state legislators from 40 different states. Our
membership is now over 250.
• In September, 2016, Citizens for Self-Governance (the parent organization of The
Convention of States Project) hosted a Simulated Article V Convention. We achieved
participation from all 50 states, including 122 sitting state legislators and 15 non-
legislator citizens, for a total of 137 commissioners. The event unfolded flawlessly,
demonstrating for the first time that the Article V convention process is safe, that the
COS Caucus model Rules work well, and that the process would be an effective way to
curb federal power.
• On November 1, 2017, PragerU published a video about the Convention of States Project,
entitled “How the States Can Save America.” As of December, 2017, it had already been
viewed over 10 Million times.
• This movement has significant participation from grassroots, with further potential for
mobilization:
o More than 57,000 people follow the Convention of States feed on Twitter.
o On Facebook, the COS pages (a dedicated page for every state, as well as a
national page) have over 3,000,000 supporters.
o Petitions in support of the Convention of States project have been submitted to
legislators in 100% of all state legislative districts in the country.
o State level volunteer leadership teams are in place in all 50 states. Volunteer
District Captains are in place in thousands of state legislative districts.
RELEVANT POLLING DATA
● Gallup – Sept. 21, 2015. “Half in U.S. Continue to Say Gov’t Is an Immediate Threat.”
Almost half of Americans, 49%, say the federal government poses “an immediate threat
to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,” similar to what was found in previous
surveys conducted over the last five years. When this question was first asked in 2003,
less than a third of Americans held this attitude.
● Pew – Nov. 23, 2015. Public Trust in the Gov’t Remains near Historic Lows. Public trust
in the government remains near historic lows. Only 19% of Americans today say they can
trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most
of the time” (16%).
4
● Gallup – December 22, 2015. “Big Government Still Named as Biggest Threat to U.S.”
When asked to choose among big government, big labor and big business, Americans
overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future.
TYPES OF AMENDMENTS THAT COULD BE PROPOSED
An amendment-proposing convention called pursuant to the Convention of States Project
application would be limited to the following subject matter areas:
• Fiscal restraints on the federal government
• Scope and jurisdictional restraints on the federal government
• Term limits on federal officials and members of Congress (this includes the federal
judiciary)
The following are some potential amendments which would be germane under this subject
matter:
○ Term limits on Congress and federal judges
○ A balanced budget amendment
○ Imposition of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
○ Single Subject Amendment – One subject per bill in Congress
o A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause back to original intent (the original view
was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the
jurisdiction of the states)
o A redefinition of the Commerce Clause back to original intent (the original view was
that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across
state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
o A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the
United States
o A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws
o Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
o Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace
them with new, fairer taxes
○ Religious freedom amendment, prohibiting the government from further interference
with our religious freedoms
○ Regulatory curtailment by forcing Congress to vote on regulations instead of
deferring law making to regulators
5
ANTICIPATING OBJECTIONS
1. The “Runaway Convention Myth”. Some people contend that our Constitution was
illegally adopted as the result of a “run-away convention.” This has been disproven as a
matter of historical fact. A comprehensive article by Michael Farris refuting the idea that
the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a “runaway” was published in the Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy and is available here. Below is a summary of the
relevant facts:
• The claim that the delegates disobeyed their instructions is based on the idea that
Congress called the Constitutional Convention and limited the delegates to amending
the Articles of Confederation. A review of legislative history clearly reveals the error
of this claim. The Annapolis Convention, not Congress, provided the political
impetus for calling the Constitutional Convention. The delegates from the 5 states
participating at Annapolis concluded that a broader convention was needed to address
the nation’s concerns. They named the time and date (Philadelphia; second Monday
in May). The Annapolis delegates said they were going to work to “procure the
concurrence of the other States in the appointment of Commissioners.” The goal of
the upcoming convention was “to render the constitution of the Federal Government
adequate for the exigencies of the Union.”
• Congress played no role in calling the Constitutional Convention, and the Articles of
Confederation gave them no authority to call such a Convention.
• The power of Congress under the Articles was strictly limited, and there was no
theory of implied powers. The states, however, possessed residual sovereignty which
included the power to call this convention.
• Seven state legislatures agreed to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention
prior to the time that Congress acted to endorse it. The states told their delegates that
the purpose of the Convention was the one stated in the Annapolis Convention
resolution: “to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the
exigencies of the Union.”
• Congress voted to endorse this Convention on February 21, 1787. It did not purport to
“call” the Convention or give instructions to the delegates. It merely proclaimed that
“in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient” for the Convention to be held in
Philadelphia on the date informally set by the Annapolis Convention and formally
approved by 7 state legislatures.
• Ultimately, 12 states appointed delegates. Ten of these states followed the phrasing of
the Annapolis Convention with only minor variations in wording (“render the Federal
Constitution adequate”). Two states, New York and Massachusetts, followed the
formula stated by Congress (“solely amend the Articles” as well as “render the
Federal Constitution adequate”).
6
• Every student of history should know that the instructions for delegates came from
the states. In Federalist 40, James Madison answered the question of “who gave the
binding instructions to the delegates.” He said: “The powers of the convention ought,
in strictness, to be determined by an inspection of the commissions given to the
members by their respective constituents [i.e. the states].” He then spends the balance
of Federalist 40 proving that the delegates from all 12 states properly followed the
directions they were given by each of their states. According to Madison, the
February 21st resolution from Congress was merely “a recommendatory act.”
• The States, not Congress, called the Constitutional Convention. They told their
delegates to render the Federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies of the Union.
And that is exactly what they did.
2. The Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments Entails Numerous, Redundant
Protections:
• The scope of authority for the convention is defined by the topic specified in the 34
applications that trigger the convention. These applications are the very source of
authority for the convention to begin with. Any proposals beyond that scope would
be out of order, and any single delegate could object to their consideration.
• Even if not a single convention delegate objected to an out-of-order proposal,
and/or even if the convention delegates had installed a parliamentarian who refused
to sustain an objection, state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their
authority or instructions. This is because convention delegates are the agents of
their state legislature and are subject to the instructions given by their state
legislature. As a matter of basic agency law, any actions taken outside the scope of
a delegate’s authority would be void.
• Even if a majority of convention delegates went rogue, and state legislatures
failed to stop commissioners from acting beyond their powers, and Congress
nevertheless sent the illicit amendment proposals to the states for ratification, the
courts would declare the proposals void. While the courts don’t have a wonderful
track record in interpreting broad constitutional language, they do have an
excellent track record of enforcing clear, technical matters of procedure and
agency law. And in numerous judicial decisions, the courts have protected the
historical understanding of Article V procedures.
• Even if ALL of those protections failed, it borders on insanity to think that 38 states
(the requirement for ratification) would ratify an amendment proposed under these
circumstances.
CONCLUSION
7
Politicians who believe that the solutions come from Washington, DC are politicians of
the past. Statesmen who believe in the sovereign American citizens, and who will work to help
the people take their power back from DC are the politicians of the American future.