Title: PDF
Original CoS Document (slug): conventional-disinformation-1
Login Required to view? No
Attached File: Conventional_Disinformation.pdf
Created: 2023-02-22 09:32:12
Updated: 2024-02-22 19:00:00
Published: 2023-02-22 03:00:00
Converted: 2025-04-14T20:10:56.766404611
Conventional Disinformation
Opponents of an Article V Convention of the States for Proposing Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution are stoking fear with objections based upon disinformation.
A common objection to an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments is the belief that
the convention will “runaway” by ignoring the limitations placed on it. The Constitutional
Convention of 1787 is often cited as an example of a runaway convention.
Limitations on a convention arise from two sources: the call and the commissions. The call is
the first resolution calling for a convention, and it places limitations on the convention as a
whole. A commission is a set of instructions a state legislature gives to its representatives
(commissioners) and can be more restrictive than the call.
The claim that the 1787 convention exceeded its call starts with incorrect identification of
the call. Consider the table on page 2, listing each of the resolutions leading up to the 1787
convention. The claim is made that the Continental Congress made the call on February 21,
1787, and restricted the convention to revising the Articles of Confederation. How could this
be the call if six states had already selected and instructed their commissioners prior to
February 21, 1787? How would those states know the subject matter, date, and location of
the convention? In fact, the Articles of Confederation did not grant the Confederation
Congress the power to call a Convention of the States.
It was Virginia that issued the call on November 23, 1786, without restricting the convention
to revising the Articles of Confederation. New York and Massachusetts did issue commissions
that restricted their commissioners to revising the Articles of Confederation, but the
convention as a whole was not so restricted.
There have been at least forty-two Conventions of States in our history (see the table on page
3), and not one has deviated from the scope of its call (runaway). It is also worth noting in
that same table that all forty-two previous Conventions of States operated on the principle of
one state, one vote.
Another common objection claims that we do not know how a Convention of States would
operate. The list of forty-two previous Conventions of States would demonstrate that we have
a great deal of experience with operating Conventions of States. In addition, the operation of
Conventions of States is well established in a significant number of court cases on the
subject. A sampling of these rulings can be found in the table on page 4.
Finally, it is self-evident that the framers knew exactly what they meant by a Convention of
the States when they drafted that mechanism into Article V because they were participating
in a Convention of States at the time! In essence, the founders were saying, “if the states
desire to propose amendments to the Constitution, use the same method we are using right
now.”
The data in the following three tables is clear evidence that an Article V Convention of the
States for Proposing Amendments is the safe, reliable, and time-tested method the framers
intended for such a time as this.
The 1787 Constitutional Convention Call and Commissions
1
Date
State
Commission
11/23/17
86
Virginia
devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions,
as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate
to the exigencies of the Union. [meet Second Monday in May 1787
in Philadelphia]
11/24/17
86
New Jersey for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union
as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such
further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the
Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies
thereof
12/3/178
6
Pennsylvani
a
devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and
further provisions as may be necessary to render the foederal
constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union
1/6/1787
North
Carolina
To discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove
the defects of our foederal union, and to procure the enlarged
purposes which it was intended to effect.
2/3/1787
Delaware
devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and
further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the Foederal
Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union [each State
shall have one vote]
2/10/178
7
Georgia
Devising and discussing all such alterations and farther provisions,
as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to
the exigencies of the union.
2/21/178
7
Confederati
on Congress
the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of
Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several
legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when
agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the
federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and
the preservation of the Union.
3/6/1787
New York
the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of
Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several
legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when
agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the
federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and
the preservation of the Union.
3/7/1787 Massachuse
tts
amend the Articles of Confederation to render the federal
constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the
preservation of the union.
3/8/1787
South
Carolina
in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and
provisions as may be thought necessary to render the foederal
constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future
good government of the confederated states
2
Because it is first, the Virginia resolution is the call, placing limitations on the convention as a
whole.
These cannot be the call, because six states had already selected and instructed their
commissioners.
42 Historical Conventions of States
5/17/178
7
Connecticu
t
Such Alterations and Provisions, agreeable to the general Principles
of Republican Government, as they shall think proper, to render the
foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Government,
and the Preservation of the Union.
5/26/178
7
Maryland
considering such alterations, and further provisions, as may be
necessary to render the federal constitution adequate for the
exigencies of the union.
6/27/178
7
New
Hampshire
in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions
as to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of
the Union.
Year
Location
Purpose
Voting
Runaway
1677
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1684
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1689
Boston
Defense issues
1 State 1 Vote
No
1689
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1690
New York City
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1693
New York City
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1694
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1704
New York City
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1711
Boston
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1722
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1744
Albany
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1744
Lancaster
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1745
Albany
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1745
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1747
New York City
Defense
1 State 1 Vote
No
1751
Albany
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1754
Albany
Indian negotiations and plan of union
1 State 1 Vote
No
1765
New York City
Response to Stamp Act
1 State 1 Vote
No
3
https://articlevinfocenter.com/list-conventions-states-colonies-american-history/
https:%%//%%articlevinfocenter.com/no-a-convention-of-states-could-not-change-the-one-state-
Selected Court Cases Related to Article V
1768
Fort Stanwyx
Indian negotiations
1 State 1 Vote
No
1774
New York City
Response to British actions
1 State 1 Vote
No
1776-77
Providence, RI
Paper currency and public credit
1 State 1 Vote
No
1777
Yorktown, PA
Price control
1 State 1 Vote
No
1777
Springfield, MA
Economic issues
1 State 1 Vote
No
1778
New Haven, CT
Price controls and other responses to inflation
1 State 1 Vote
No
1779
Hartford, CT
Economic issues
1 State 1 Vote
No
1780
Philadelphia, PA
Price controls
1 State 1 Vote
No
1780
Boston, MA
Conduct of Revolutionary War
1 State 1 Vote
No
1780
Hartford, CT
Conduct of Revolutionary War
1 State 1 Vote
No
1781
Providence, RI
War supply
1 State 1 Vote
No
1786
Annapolis, MD
Trade
1 State 1 Vote
No
1787
Philadelphia, PA
Propose changes to political system
1 State 1 Vote
No
1814
Hartford, CT
New England states response to the war of 1812
1 State 1 Vote
No
1850
Nashville, TN
Southern response to the North
1 State 1 Vote
No
1861
Washington, DC
Propose a constitutional amendment
1 State 1 Vote
No
1861
Montgomery, AL
Write the Confederate Constitution
1 State 1 Vote
No
1889
St. Louis, MO
Propose anti-trust measures
1 State 1 Vote
No
1922
Santa Fe, NM
Negotiate the Colorado River Compact
1 State 1 Vote
No
1928-29
Santa Fe, NM
Negotiate temporary Rio Grande Compact
1 State 1 Vote
No
1928-38
Colorado Springs, CO
Santa Fe, NM
Negotiate the Rio Grande Compact
1 State 1 Vote
No
1937
Santa Fe, NM
Negotiate the Rio Grande Compact
1 State 1 Vote
No
1946-49
Denver, CO
Negotiate the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact
1 State 1 Vote
No
2017
Phoenix, AZ
Propose rules for an Article V convention to
propose a balanced budget
1 State 1 Vote
No
Case
Holding
Barker v. Hazeltine, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (D.S.D.
1998)
Article V is the only constitutional method
of amending the US Constitution.
4
https:%%//%%rickbulow.com/Library/Books/Non-Fiction/ArticleV/
FindingsOfCourtCasesRelatedToArticleVOfTheUnitedStatesConstitution.pdf
Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855)
Amendatory conventions may be single
issue. T
he States and/or the people
cannot dictate the amendments. A
state application is valid solely
because it was made by the state.
Gralike v. Cooke, 191 F. 3d 911 (8th Cir. 1999)
Article V Conventions cannot be
prohibited from deliberation and
consideration of a proposed amendment
and thereby limited to pre-written
wording.
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378
(1798)
No signature of the President is required
for a constitutional amendment to be
valid and complete.
In Re Opinion of the Justices, 204 N.C. 306, 172
S.E. 474 (1933)
An Article V Convention may be limited in
purpose to a single issue or to a fixed set
of issues.
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)
The state legislature’s discretion could not
be supplanted by the rules imposed by a
third party.
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 373
Mass. 877, 366 N.E. 2d 1226 (1977)
The governor plays no role in the approval
process of an Article V Convention
application.
Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41
U.S. 539 (1842)
No one is authorized to question the
validity of a state’s application for an
Article V Convention.
Smith v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 30 U.S.
518 (1831)
An Article V Convention is a “convention
of the States” and is therefore endowed
with the powers of an interstate
convention.
State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 320
(1920)
An Article V Convention will require only
two-thirds of the quorum present to
conduct business.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)
The amendment and ratification processes
cannot be changed to circumvent the
Article V Convention.
United States v. Thibault, 47 F.2d 169 (2d Cir.
1931)
The federal or national government is not
concerned with how an Article V
Convention of a state legislature is
constituted. Therefore, the Article V
Convention is empowered to organize and
conduct its business as the delegates or
commissioners see fit.
5
6