The Friday Letter / No. 553 / Sept. 22, 2023
Updated at 9:16 a.m. ET with corrections of some typographical errors that were omitted from the final edits
Recently, the Convention of States Foundation convened a meeting of 103 commissions from 49 states in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, to participate in an important and valuable educational exercise. These state delegates were gathered to simulate an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the US Constitution.
The purpose of this assembly was to test the efficacy of an interstate convention process and to observe the interactions among and cooperation between the commissioners in their quest to remedy and restore the balance of power between the national government and the states that is enshrined in our constitution.
The commissioners replicated a procedure that the states frequently used during the formation of our republic to gather and discuss solutions to the problems they faced. Article V in the US Constitution is a contrivance the Founders gave the states to put a check on the national government that they highly suspected would eventually venture to grow and consolidate its power and control over the states.
The commissioners were brought in from across the nation, including 78 sitting state legislators, eight former state legislators, and 17 policy experts and opinion leaders. Even though this was a simulated event, all the commissioners took this exercise very seriously, and they wanted to find out if the process worked as they anticipated.
Would the commissioners respect the limits of the call? Would they follow the rules of the convention which were based on the proceedings of past conventions? Most importantly, could the convention propose amendments that would effectively rein in our runaway national government?
From my vantage point as a commissioner and former state legislator from Florida, I can say that when the convention adjourned, it had answered the first two questions with a resounding “Yes.” However, the convention fell somewhat short on the last one. While the amendments that passed would address some of the abuses of the national government, more comprehensive and impactful alternatives were overlooked.
Without question, a number of underlying factors and forces were pushing the overall agenda, but, nevertheless, several lessons can be learned from the simulated experience for our edification.
With a constricted timeframe of only 48 hours to introduce, debate, amend, and vote out the proposed amendments, it was not possible to fully scrutinize the propositions with thorough deliberation and wordsmithing as needed to put them in their best posture. Because any amendments delivered to the several states for their approval can no longer be revised at that point, they need to be exceedingly clear and concise to gain ratification by the states.
There was an approved amendment that, although properly addressing an infringement of the national government, had a narrow and regional application. Most assuredly, this amendment would find it very difficult to gain broad support and ratification when presented to the several states. The commissioners need to always have the end game in view when developing and voting out their amendments.
The commissioners had plenty of opportunity to present their proposed amendments either prior to the actual convention and/or during the committee hearings that took place before they convened as a full body. Some proposed amendments were concise and vigorous toward restraining the errant national government but were not even heard in committee while others, potentially less impactful, made it through the process.
Most of the commissioners present at the simulated convention were sitting state legislators. These honorable and well-meaning elected public servants, with all the right intentions, basically formed a legislative body that is naturally more attuned to dealing with public policy matters than it is with issues of principled governance.
It goes without saying that, even in a simulated event, removing the politics from a gathering of commissioners is virtually impossible. Participants who are not elected to public office bring their “personal” vices and prejudices to the process, while elected officials inject their “political” vices and prejudices into the discussion.
For commissioners who do not hold elected office, deliberations on principled governance are robust, productive, and have a much better chance of remaining non-partisan. Of course, there most likely will be compromise, but the outcome will be the most authoritative amendments able to effectively restrict the national government while having the greatest chance of getting ratified by the several states.
On the other hand, commissioners who are currently elected to office carry with them their political party agendas and associated foibles, as well as campaign strategies, into the debate on principled governance. These arguments will potentially become political squabbles resulting in amendments of no substance or hyper-partisan in composition, thereby greatly diminishing the chances of securing ratification from 3/4ths of the states.
When the convention meets, it will be a unique opportunity that cannot be squandered and it is crucial that it deliver substantial and meaningful amendments in order to retain support for another convention, if needed, to constrain an out-of-control national power.
The Convention of States Foundation deserves much credit and should be commended for investing in a simulated Article V Convention and allowing us the opportunity to observe and learn from the experience. The valuable lessons gleaned can be applied to the much-anticipated convention of states.
The simulation demonstrated that the Article V process works and that the states clearly are prepared and resolved to assert their constitutional right to self-determination over an increasingly overzealous and centralized national government.
These are just a few observations and mere thoughts, but maybe some credible insights for serious contemplation. When the convention convenes, will principle and altruism supersede politics and ambition? Can we keep our republic? We will have to wait and see.
A previous guest columnist for The Friday Letter, James Kallinger is President of the National Association of Former State Legislators. He served two terms representing an Orlando area district in the Florida House of Representatives.