Smith letter: Convention of states

While I agree with McKay Cunningham’s concern (Feb. 2 Guest Opinion) about opening the Constitution up for revision at an Article V Convention of States, his opinion piece gives a simplistic analysis of the issue and glosses over many of the details explicitly stated in Article V.

First, the whole point behind amending the Constitution via this route is that the framers of the Constitution foresaw that one day Congress itself may be the problem.

Second, Cunningham states that, “No rule or law limits the scope of a state-called constitutional convention.” This statement is misleading in that Cunningham never mentions once in his piece that constitutional conventions can only propose, not ratify, amendments. Once an amendment is proposed by a CoS, it must then be ratified by a three-fourths vote of the states.

Third, the issue with delegates must be delineated in each state’s application for a CoS.

Fourth, that “the game has neither rules or referees” is simply incorrect by my second point and the application process.

Both the Department of Justice and American Bar Association concluded, in independent studies, that a CoS can be limited to one topic.

I challenge Professor Cunningham to give a deeper analysis.

This story was originally published February 24, 2017 at 7:28 PM with the headline "Smith letter: Convention of states."