Title: Truth Vs. Fiction
Original CoS Document (slug): truth-vs-fiction
Login Required to view? No
Attached File: Truth_vs_Fiction_Correcting_False_Claims.pdf
Created: 2019-03-07 10:43:26
Updated: 2020-03-07 19:00:00
Published: 2019-03-07 06:44:37
Converted: 2025-04-14T19:33:44.565537862
Truth vs. Fiction:
Correcting False COS Claims
False Claim: An Article V convention is a ‘Constitutional Convention;’ in other words a ‘Con-Con.’
Truth: This is No Con. It’s an ‘amendments convention.’ It is wrong to imply an Article V convention
held today would mirror the 1787 Philadelphia convention that produced the U.S. Constitution. The
states that gathered then had individual supreme political powers. They were not bound to any Articles
of Confederation procedures or guidelines for proposing amendments. Today, an Article V convention
has limits, which are rooted in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. An Article V convention is limited to
only proposing amendments to the existing Constitution. (For further information, a comprehensive article by
Michael Farris was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and refutes the idea that the 1787 Constitutional
Convention was a “runaway” convention. Download and read it here.)
False Claim: Convention delegates could rewrite the entire Constitution.
Truth: No rewrite; only proposed amendments. The goal of the Convention of States Project is firm –
holding an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments
have one purpose – limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The convention topic
is limited to this one purpose and state legislatures provide specific instructions to their representative
delegates to adhere to this restriction. Potential amendments appropriate under this one purpose could
include a balanced budget amendment and term limits on Congress and federal judges.
False Claim: Holding an Article V convention is unprecedented.
Truth: Clear precedent has been established. Since 1787, 33 interstate conventions have been held in
the United States – each with a specified topic or meeting agenda. Thus, there’s a clear standard for
how these meetings work. At interstate conventions, voting always is done as individual states – each
has one vote, regardless of population or number of delegates in attendance. That’s why it’s a
convention of states – not a convention of delegates.
False Claim: Only Congress has the authority to amend the Constitution.
Truth: Article V of the U.S Constitution states: “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. . .”
False Claim: The Article V convention process has no safeguards. It won’t protect our Constitution
from rogue delegates or special interest groups.
Truth: Significant process safeguards exist to prevent corruption. They include:
1) The Limited Scope of an Amendments Convention
The 34 state applications that trigger an Article V convention act as an initial limitation to corruption.
All state applications have one specified topic – limiting the scope and jurisdiction of the federal
government. When Congress exercises its mandatory duty to call the convention, it follows the state
applications and specifies scope. Any proposals beyond this would be out of order.
2) Restrictions on Commissioner Authority
Each state delegation is chosen by and directed by its state legislature. State legislatures can recall
commissioners who exceed their authority or instructions. Any actions taken outside a
commissioner’s scope of authority are void.
3) State Voting Requirements –
It is a requirement that 38 states ratify any amendment proposed by the convention while only 13
states are needed to block any ill-conceived or illegitimately advocated proposal. The convention
cannot change the method of ratification. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that an
Article V amendments convention is empowered by the U.S. Constitution and subject to its rules.
(Further information: The Process of an Article V Convention.)