“Under Article V of Constitution, Congress, upon application of two-thirds of the states, must call a convention for proposing amendments,” Heritage legal scholar John Malcolm explains:

Proponents argue that an Article V convention, completely bypassing Congress, the President, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy, would give the states and the people a more direct role in determining how much power the federal government should have and whether some of its existing power should be returned to the states and the people. The process specified in Article V raises many questions that require careful consideration: how such a convention would work, what types of amendments it might produce, and whether some of those amendments would successfully rein in the federal government and reinvigorate federalism. With or without such a convention, however, it remains vitally important that we continue to maintain an overriding focus on holding Congress, the President, and, by extension, federal agencies accountable for the decisions they make today.

One major question about an Article V convention–which has been suggested recently by both conservatives and progressives as a means to bypass an intransigent Congress–is about whether it can be limited to advancing conservative ends:

An Article V convention might propose an amendment to restore or expand the liberties of the American people, but it also could propose an amendment that diminishes the liberties of the American people, or of some of the people. While it is no doubt true that the ratification process itself, requiring support from three-fourths of the states (38 at present), decreases the likelihood of some radical proposal ultimately becoming part of our Constitution, it is worth recalling that 27 of the 33 proposed amendments that have been sent to the states for ratification achieved the requisite number, and that was before the age of the Internet and social media–driven campaigns that can dramatically increase public pressure on those who are considering such an amendment and reduce the time devoted to thoughtful reflection.

Be sure to read Malcolm’s whole article, which reviews the legal and practical arguments both for and against an Article V convention.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution has more about Article V and its meaning.

Do you think amending the Constitution is the best way to advance freedom?

Comments (234)

James H Snowden III - April 19, 2016

Absolutely. How else can we peacefully stop this out of control Government. This is timely right now. We continue like we have for decades then we will join the other countries such as Argentina or Venezuela and all the rest.

Carol Morrisey - April 19, 2016

I think the Constitution is just fine the way it is. Opening the door to changes would allow special interests to push for their own agenda, which would not likely be good for the country.

Thomas Ludka - April 19, 2016

An Article V convention is necessary. It is not in the self interest of the Federal Government and those who work in it, to fix anything but maintain the status quo and take care of the friends and donors. We the people have been given a method to do that.

Anne - April 19, 2016

We have enough laws on the books. We need to enforce the good ones.

Joy M Crouch - April 19, 2016

I’m very concerned that a convention of the states would open a pandora’s box. Why not concentrate our efforts in holding our elected officials responsible for the mess in DC? If they can’t keep their campaign promises, lets select good conservatives to run against them.

John D Pfister - April 19, 2016

No. I’m afraid a con-con might result in worsening the situation. The real solution is to get rid of the Fat Cat politicians who are wedded to their donors, and elect people working specifically for the people. I would strongly suggest two-term limits for all levels of politicians.

Richard Cancemi - April 19, 2016

Washington no longer listens to the people. therefore the people must take matters into their own hands to bring about a return of a Constitutional government.

Kermit D. Heaton - April 19, 2016

The presidential, legislative, and judicial branches of our federal government are all three ‘out of control’. They will never control themselves! Article V and the Constitution itself have sufficient controls. Your summary arguments are only applicable if you are trying to scare off the low information citizens. If heritage were really serious about doing something; instead of doing something for PR effect only, they would publicaly support an Article V Convention of States.

Robert Ruth - April 19, 2016

I fear a Constitutional Convention and what it would do to our rights. With the left ideology and political correctness running wild I can only imagine how they would attempt to shred the 1st and 2nd Amendments–and probably not stop there.

Robert Brown - April 19, 2016

The author’s negative portrayal of an Article V attempt to salvage the Republic is sad. The author doesn’t even know enough too call it what Article V says it is: a “Convention of the States to consider Amendments.” It’s not a “Constitutional Convention.” That term is used to scare people. The suggestion that it could introduce undesirable changes is to scare people. The reality is that the approach by the HF to appeal to the DC insiders to change their ways has failed miserably. There has been a runaway, unofficial constitutional convention for the last 85 years by DC insiders that has instituted dictatorial changes. As for me, I think its long past time to give the states a chance at restoring some semblance of a Republic. You can count DC conservative reps/senators on your fingers and toes. Three-fourths of the state houses can’t do worse. I came close to quitting the HF last year because of its reluctance to embrace an Article V solution. I think the HF likes its inside-the-beltway minority status and has become a feckless debate society that is fine with the status quo because nothing it does reverses our course. A winning argument that changes nothing is worthless. All of DC should be treated with contempt. Stop begging at the feet of the Washington insiders who give us (and you!!!) nothing but lip service. Join with the American people. Stop portraying yourselves as fighting the system. Until you get onboard, you’re just insiders too…and this will be my last year as a member.

Tom Eisenhart - April 19, 2016

Even if the Convention ‘proposes’ Amendments, they still have to be ratified by the States. We the People would have the final say, even as We the People had the opportunity to ratify the Constitution itself.

c dulaney - April 19, 2016

only way to reset government over reach by administrative actions and set term limits to force lawmakers to live under laws they pass

Joe Stephans - April 19, 2016

Mr. Malcolm is clueless about the current Convention of States Project. You should send him to talk to Mark Levin, a real Constitutional scholar. Does Heritage Foundation and Mr. Malcolm not understand the dire situation our country is entering into? Does Heritage not know Congress won’t fix itself? Time for the people to act through a Convention of States.

M H - April 19, 2016

This is a very dangerous idea.

Sid Davis - April 19, 2016

The Federal Government has to be stopped from letting NON ELECTED appointees from making laws and regulations!! They have muted Congress and is totally against the constitution. Congress is the only body who should be writing laws. They have shrugged their duty’s by not being in session as any other industry would be. They need to do a job to get their pay. We the people can demand that by the use of article five!!

Arlene Roberts - April 19, 2016

I think it is the only way at this point. Especially if we get another horrible President like Hillary, Sanders, Trump or Kasich. The founding fathers put in that article for a reason. Our federal government is out of control. There is no-one there representing us (conservatives)at this point–or at least, “our guys” are badly outnumbered–even by main-stream Republicans.

Dennis Nichols - April 19, 2016

Yes in my humble opinion we must have an Article V convention. Washington whether run by Dems or Republicans or a combination is broken.Too many unelected bureaucracys make too many rules without congress and without the peoples consent. Nothing will fix this but an Article V convention. We certainly cannot rely on our elected officials at this point either. I trust the American people more than unelected bureaucrates or elected impermanate officials.

Richard E. Walrond - April 19, 2016

A Constitutional Convention is the best way to help clean up the US Congress by: Implementing Term Limits of Senators to eight years(two terms)and limitilng House members to 3 to 4 terms.
Members of Congress should be held to the same standard with regard to Social Security payments,Health care benefits etc. There are a few other issues that need to be discussed and possibly implemented as well as those mentioned above. The people in Congress seem to now think of themselves as “Political Royalty.”. From the years of the 1770’s an American uprising was building within the population of the area covering the original 13 colonies. I had an ancestor that was part of that uprising. Needless to say the current population dating back to the early to mid 1950’s, is poorly versed or aware of the simple basics of History or simple local,state and national civics.; therefore it is critical that the US educational system should not only be determined by each state but some method implemented to help current citizens be given the opportunity to be better informed.

BRYAN CRANE - April 19, 2016

Yes, but only for limited purpose(s). Completely open convention not a good idea.

Robert Dietrich - April 19, 2016

Article V is the only way to reset the meaning and intention of our Founders!

David Hall - April 19, 2016

Two and only two organizations will receive my political financial support. One is Heritage and the other is COS Article V effort. Federalism must be restored and I see no other way.

Michael D.Peterman - April 19, 2016

The main objection I hear from opponents of a Con. Convention is that we conservatives may lose control of the process and get amendments that we do not want. My opinion is that if the “other side” (progressives, liberals and socialists have the power to push through unwanted Const. amendments, they would already be doing so. Great change requires great courage and doing nothing empowers the purveyors of evil. Strike now or we may forever lose the chance to do so.

Carol J.Thomas - April 19, 2016

I am against the opening a Constitutional Convention for the mere reason that it was a miracle that our forefathers could even agree to the extent that we got such a good arrangement that we now have, so if we open that can of worms, we will never be able to get it back together again. The chances are that we could end up in a much worse state. Those who have loudest voices will control it, and it could be the far left taking over, once it is opened. So I vote NO.

Nancy M Czerwiec - April 19, 2016

Amending the Constitution is the best way for our nation to proceed as it has proven it works—On the other hand Con Con has no long history as there has only been one. With so many wishing to destroy our Constitutional Republic with its Constitution and Bill of Rights we need to see the pitfalls to the Con Con idea.
I think original intent as put forth by the late US Supreme Court Justice Scalia is what is needed today for far too many want the Constitution to be a changeable living document —So let’s hope we don’t move on a call for Con Con and also stop the effort to destroy the original intent of our Constitution.

Daniel Burke - April 19, 2016

Yes. A Constitutional Convention of States is our ONLY hope of repairing this nation and bringing it back to the Constitutional Principles on which it was founded.

Bill - April 19, 2016

Maybe it’s worth the risk. The clowns that make the rules do not live by the rules they create, but we do. How do we change that? If they had to live by the rules they impose, the rules would make more sense.

HARRY CHENEY - April 19, 2016

Any Amendment proposed by an Article V Convention still must be ratified by three-fourths of the states before it becomes part of the Constitution. There is a good probability that any conservative proposed Amendment would pass while the probability that a liberal proposed Amendment is not likely to even get past the Convention.

James Stewart - April 19, 2016

Trusted people like Phyllis Scholarly have said that a Constitutional Convention based on Article 5 of the Constitution cannot be trusted. America has lost it’s Christian Worldview upon which our Nation is based. Under these circumstances, we cannot depend on a Constitutional Convention to do the “right” thing. We must depend on those with a Christian Worldview to eliminate government schools that have indoctrinated many generations. Our citizens no longer understand America’s History. They have been lied to for more than a century. In fact, they have been lied to since God created our sinful world.

Barry Widman - April 19, 2016

Barring a miracle, I think an Article 5 convention of the states is the best (and maybe only) way to save the Republic and our constitutional form of government. We have been sliding toward tyranny and statism under good administrations and bad ones. The effort is not guaranteed success, but it is essential that we try. The federal government was created by the states to serve them and the people, and it is past time for the people wrest control back from the federal leviathan.

Robert Sonnelitter - April 19, 2016

Keeping the Constitution as it is is the best way to preserve freedom.

Neil Wickersty - April 19, 2016

Yes; do it now before it is too late!

Jerry Metcalf - April 19, 2016

???

Friedrich Steil - April 19, 2016

With the amount of people that have little or no idea of the working of government, I’m afraid that the majority of votes would be for more freebies and less freedom. we must vote out the liars and elect good, honest legislators.

ShariLee Beynon - April 19, 2016

No. Our constitution needs a marriage amendment and rights of the unborn to be clearly laid out, but it already gives us rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The left just needs to realize that it means what it says and not their interpretation of what it says.

Adri Kalisvaart - April 19, 2016

Do I think amending the Constitution is the best way to advance freedom? No!
Our government for the last 120 years has acted evermore in complete disregard of our Constitution. Amending our Constitution to force our government to live up to our Constitution as conceived in 1776 by our Founders is a fool’s errant.
Our “Masters” in Washington and their armies of bureaucrats, as well as the Supreme Court, will disregard that amendment just as they have shown complete disregard for our Constitution as conceived by our Founders.
Leave our constitution alone and hope that future generations will rediscover its timeless truth, namely, those Inalienable Rights to my life, liberty, and property; and that by right I must be left free to pursue my own happiness.

Ryan Kopp - April 19, 2016

It would be reasonable to consider that a constitutional convention would result in some compromises. I for one hope that states rights could be reaffirmed, and prqy that could have the effect of correcting our country’s path towards a balanced future. Religious liberty can be protected whilst strengthening the right to the pursuit of happiness. Health care must not mandated.Energy security should be achieved by strengthening conventional energy while constantly supporting alternative energy development.

James North - April 19, 2016

Yes. In my opinion we are governed by a DC club whether they be on the ends of ideology or in the middle, we the people are not being represented. I want a return to citizen representation and hope that a Constitution Convention can at minimum agree on term limits for our representatives.
Unfortunately this could disrupt the leadership of many very dedicated, people-centered representatives, but they are far overshadowed by a majority who does not and apparently will not represent the best interests of the United States citizens.

Cole Ferrell - April 19, 2016

Seems to come down to the fear of a runaway convention. I don’t think it’s worth the risk, because ultimately even if we can temporarily push a new law or amendment through, unless we can win over the people long-term no strategy will be sustainable. We can’t protect them by outsmarting them, they have to wake up and think responsibly or they will vote us off a cliff.

catherine sturm - April 19, 2016

The Federal Government has become too large and is taking over States’ rights.

Robert Cuminale - April 19, 2016

I would be in favor of a convention if its purpose is to debate whether the residents in this land have enough in common to remain one nation.
Let us separate peacefully. Surely it s possible to set up an apparatus to manage the Social Security and Medicare funds already collected, provide for the fair sale of property during the mass movement of people and avoid the India/Pakistan scenario.
We can provide treaties that will allow free trade and fair tariffs and assure the Northern states of easy access to the ports closest to the Panama Canal.
Make it happen, sooner than later.

Timothy Docter - April 19, 2016

I am strongly in favor of the Article V Convention and I would hope Heritage would support it as well. It is clear that the Congress the Judiciary and the President are incapable of passing and enforcing laws protecting the Constitutional rights of we the people. Now is the time in the history of our country for the people to act to strengthen and clarify the Constitution to reduce the size and strength of the Federal Government and bring the governing back to the people.

Judy Dahlberg - April 19, 2016

Dear Heritage Foundation,
I really appreciate your sending this
timely information. It was interesting and very helpful to me.

Thank You!

John H Ross - April 19, 2016

The constitution and related amendments are strong enough as is. The problems are related to the lack of being faithful to the articles through enforcement by congress, misinterpretation/false interpretation (creating their own statute) by the supreme court, or outright ignoring the constitution by the president through “executive order”. The integrity of the constitution is essentially ignored.

Kay Anderson - April 19, 2016

Don’t we generally call the Founders “wise”? Why not call this Convention? The corruption among our leaders is so rampant, there is almost no hope to get back to what was intended by these wise men! If we keep what we have, there is definitely looming total failure, and submission to world government.

John Maxwell - April 19, 2016

Do not amend the Constitution!!!!
The idea is Lunacy. John

Shirley Spellerberg - April 19, 2016

ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS WHAT IS NEEDED.
AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE SOLUTION AND IS A DANGEROUS UNDERTAKING.
AMENDMENTS WILL NOT CONTROL A PRESIDENT WHO IGNORES THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW; WILL NOT ELIMINATE THE LIBERTY-ROBBING REGULATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IMPOSED BY UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS; AND WILL NOT CONTROL THE LIBERAL SCOTUS.
A CONVENTION COULD RE-WRITE THE CONSTITUTION AND SHRED THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE RATIFICATION PROCESS COULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM STATE
LEGISLATURES AND GIVEN TO A RATIFICATION CONVENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE V WHICH COULD PROVE DISASTROUS.
IF THE PEOPLE WILL NOT ELECT CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES THEN AMERICA, UNDER GOD, AS OUR FOUNDERS GAVE US IS FINISHED.

William Stanley - April 19, 2016

I feel a Constitutional Convention would be the worst of all options. A citizenry contemplating a self proclaimed socialist for President of the United States of America has no business attempting to “improve” one of the greatest documents in history. Neither Utopia nor prepetual motion can/will ever be accomplished, nor will a successful socialist State. A Constitutional Convention’s goverance would no doubt be much like our present congress, poll driven and inept. The outcome/product of a convention, a proposed change(s) would destroy centuries of jurisprudence, American and English, and throw our country into chaos while the citizenry of each State attempts to ratify said change(s) or puts forward the proposition that the convention be reconvened as additional “issues” are brought to light. Not a cozy picture for our future.

Diane Pizzo - April 19, 2016

No! There is too much risk that liberals will use it to limit
the rights of conservatives and we will be worse off.

Peggy Whitlock - April 19, 2016

Agree with a Constitutional Convention.
Keep up the good work.

Harold Roberts - April 19, 2016

No! To dangerous that it will not be thought through and the wrong people will get control and push through something we will regret.

michele - April 19, 2016

No amendment to our Constitutions will assure our true freedoms and I believe a “convention ” is very dangerous and is being spurred by the very people who are salivating at the closeness of our America to the tipping point of Nazism. Only our gracious God and willing honest citizens can pull us out of the sewer that our toes are just inches from.

Jon - April 19, 2016

There is too much risk of the process being “hijacked” by the influence of the liberal media to risk revising a nearly perfect and well proven document!

Dawn Montgomery - April 19, 2016

Yes. I feel this tool was provided by our founders, as an option to restrain our federal government…if needed. I strongly feel it’s needed! Our federal government has gone unchecked for almost 250 years. They think THEY are in charge, instead of the people (states). I feel any element of risk is covered by the ample requirements involved in article V. Heritage should be involved in this historic endeavor.

Dawn Montgomery - April 19, 2016

Yes. I feel this tool was provided by our founders, as an option to restrain our federal government…if needed. I strongly feel it’s needed! Our federal government has gone unchecked for almost 250 years. They think THEY are in charge, instead of the people (states). I feel any element of risk is covered by the ample requirements involved in article V. Heritage should be involved in this historic endeavor.

Sheryl Lee - April 19, 2016

A ConstConv scares me because I fear further quashing of my liberties. The Constitution protects my liberties (for gov’t leaders that stick to their oath of office) and a change of the Constitution won’t stop one that is bent on ignoring it. A ConstConv is unnecessary because the Constitution already forms the most perfect union, and it only opens up the opportunity to reduce it to a less perfect union. IMHO

Tila Hubrecht - April 19, 2016

I’m concerned about the status of our nation and in my state we are considering a vote on the possibility of Article 5.
I appreciate the resources offered on your website.

Robert Edwards - April 19, 2016

Our present government is out of control and operates against the general interests of the public. It operates by and for special interests like the bad ethanol law which benefits the corn farmers. It’s all about money in the pockets of the Politicians and Government workers..

Roland Schutz - April 19, 2016

Not a good idea. The courts would interpret these amendments as they treat the Constitution now.

Harold E Hein - April 19, 2016

I think we should have Congressional term limits.

Mrs. Phyllis Eix - April 19, 2016

I believe all our elected officials do and should take a solemn oath to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United states of America just the way it is today. No additional amendments are useful or necessary at this time in our country’s history

Don L. Vance - April 19, 2016

I am against such a convention. Two major reasons include:

1) It is far easier to elect constitutionally conservative members to Congress than it is to amend the Constitution. Resources should be directed toward electing constitutional conservatives rather than a convention that may or may not be successful.

2) Since we are not following the Constitution now, what makes anyone think constitutional amendments will be followed? I don’t see it happening until and unless we put constitutional conservatives in Congress. The courts are routinely rewriting the Constitution as well as the President, executive Departments, and Congress.

We need to restore the Constitution as written and amended. More Amendments will not restore the Constitution.

A Burt - April 19, 2016

I think a constitutional convention is critical to the future of our country!
We must radically reform the way Congress does business. Our failure to act will be a national tragedy.

John C. Hyland - April 19, 2016

I can see a really good use of the process and at the same time it may not do any good at all. We may be jumping the gun as, hop[efully, we may have a Republican President and Congress in about 8 months. Then we will be able to assess it better.

Marilyn Summers - April 19, 2016

An Article V remedy would give us the people much more say or control over accountability. However, there are 2 Article V possibilities. I favor a “Convention of States” as opposed to a Constitutional Convention. COS would limit the possibility of rogue amendments or outright destruction of the Constitution. Liberals of course would push for the Constitutional Convention.

Hubert Poetschke - April 19, 2016

I think that Constitutional Convention although sounds good will end up not as was expected, the conservatives might lose. It is to risky at the present state of our nation leaning to the Left in last decades, practically since FDR. Unfortunately, the Republican Party establishment is not helpful and almost always capitulate to the Left (Democrats, Marxists, Socialists, Progressives and other lunatics). We must focus on rebuilding the Republican Party, push for term limits of Congress and the balanced budget amendment. We must bring back honesty to Congress and our Federal government, which is to big and to powerful.
Thanks for reading.

K. L. Hunter - April 19, 2016

Government needs to leave things to the Real people

Patsy Bohanan - April 19, 2016

It could be or it could not be, depending on who represents me at the constitutional convention. I do not really know enough about this to give an well thought out response.

Allan Templin - April 19, 2016

I definitely believe that the constitution needs to be amended to include term limits for both the administrative and judicial branches. The excesses of power wielded by both branches has never been more evident than it is today.

DAVID L DEIBEL - April 19, 2016

AFTER READING ALL OF THIS IT APPEARS THERE IS NO EASY SOLUTION. BUT, IF WE DO NOT BEGIN WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IE THE EROSION OF FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD BEGIN WITH AMENING THE CONSTITUTION IN THREE AREAS,1. THE ABORTION ISSUE BY DEFINING WHEN LIFE BEGINS; 2. CONGRESSIONAL ENTITLEMENTS ISSUE FOR SENATORS AND
REPRESENTATIVES OUGHT TO BE RESTRICTED TO CONFORM WITH THOSE OF ANY CIVIL SERVANT; 3. TERM LIMITS SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.

Angela Landrum - April 19, 2016

No! The founding fathers got it right!!! We have everything we need in The Constitution!!!

Keith Roberts - April 19, 2016

As I understand a Constitutional Convention, it could be in today’s world, somewhat of a loose canon. Activists and extremists seem to be the ones putting forward the notion of such an activity. I question whether the people could get fairly represented in such an environment. Would the attending delegates be capable of arriving at anything but more partisan division? We live in very inflammatory times where “all of the people, all of the time” is not possible. Such a Convention could literally ignite a Civil War. Caveat Emptor. But then, one has to wonder if the Founding Fathers were actually activists and extremists in their time. I see a Constitutional Convention as dangerous territory. Let’s be patient.

K. L. Hunter - April 19, 2016

Articile V: Should hold Congress, the President and federal agencies accountable for their decisions, which isn’t being Done.

Phillip Williams - April 19, 2016

I do not believe that the best way to ADVANCE freedom is via constitutional amendments. I believe that amendments are a tool of lawmakers and can be used for either good or evil. If the amendment is “good” (for the people), then an amendment is great! If the amendment is “evil” (for the people), then an amendment is terrible and debilitating to freedom! Lawmakers are charged with discerning “good” from “evil”. The “people” have entrusted them with that charge. If the amendment “checks” with the Constitution, then the amendment is “good”. If the amendment does NOT “check” (or line up) with the Constitution, then the amendment is “evil”. It’s really not complicated! (I have learned that ANYTIME a subject has gotten complicated, evil is involved…and that evil, every time, is the lust/greed for money or power or both!) The whole rub is that lawmakers…generally speaking…have caved-in and continue to compromise what they KNOW is right for “the people”. They cater to, or give-in to, those who bark the loudest or have the most to offer for their personal gain…whether it be money or prestige…the result is more personal POWER for the lawmaker. So the problem is runaway corruption within ALL three branches of our government. Corruption here meaning…they are not abiding by their oath to uphold the US Constitution! We have laws, but any law is useless without accountability! So the question in my mind is two-fold: How do we GET the corruption out of the three branches of government and how do we KEEP it out for future generations while staying true to the law and intent of our Constitution? Article V is certainly very interesting to me! Phillip’s two-cent’s worth!

Thomas A Davies - April 19, 2016

We need to do something to stop the federal government illegal intrusion of our rights as citizens of this great country.

Shelley Townley - April 19, 2016

We do not need a Convention of the States to save our Constitution. We just need to follow and enforce the freedoms laid out in the Constitution we. have.

There is no way to limit what is changed at a Constitutional Convention. There is a real danger that we could wind up with changes that give too much power to the government, resulting in a totalitarian, top down form of government.

We are already gradually heading in that direction.

Chauncey Isenhour - April 19, 2016

Our Constitution provides for amending the
constitution by a supermajority in both houses. A convention could wreck what we have and allow the Supreme Court to make the Constitution even more flexible as our liberal court is already trying to do.

Pat Hendrickon - April 19, 2016

I’m not in favor of a Constitutional Convention. With the current liberal bent of the mass media and rampant brainwashing of the younger generation to expand government control via freebees. I would fear less freedom and more regulations and punitive measures against the people who work and contribute to this great nation.

Stephen Kiley - April 19, 2016

Since it doesn’t appear the Congress will do anything to mess up their “deal” It will be necessary for the states to correct the situation i.e. Term Limits, congress people subject to the laws they enact, retirement, social security, etc. I think it would be a good thing cause the current crop won’t do squat.

David McGillvray - April 19, 2016

Be careful, “Very Careful” what you wish for!

treece willits - April 19, 2016

I think that simply printing the number of years served in office beside the candidates name (up for reelection) would work just fine. I do not want my constitution changed. It is just fine exactly the way that it currently is

Quincy Ewing - April 19, 2016

Absolutely not! Let us not expose that cherished document to abuse. Let’s just get back to being guided and governed by it.

Byron Hansen - April 19, 2016

No, the constitution is fine. We need a congress and supreme court to adhere to the constitution as is. Given the current super liberal media an attempt to amend the constitution at this time would hurt conservatives.

Barbara - April 19, 2016

No!
George Soros WANTS the convention.

Does THAT tell you something!

Barbara - April 19, 2016

Our forefathers KNEW what they were doing, and were much more intelligent than our leaders, today.

All, that needs to be done, is follow the Constitution, as it is now…enforce the laws…the laws that are already on the books! Not ignore them, or bend them, as has been done, in the recent past, and is still going on today, by this corrupt administration and CONgress!

R D Halbrooks - April 19, 2016

I think following the original intent of the constitution is what we need–and the original intent becomes obvious when reading the federalists papers and other period articles–the constitution is a living document that breaths the DNA of it’s original intent. If it takes a constitutional convention to accomplish, than so be it.

Laura Faulk - April 19, 2016

I am concerned that a Convention of States might spawn a radical proposal(s). IMO, we need ONE proposal, and that is Term Limits for Congress. And include the Supreme Court in that proposal. Let’s concentrate our efforts on that.

Phillip - April 19, 2016

I do not believe that Article V is a viable option right now. I believe it could prove to be a disastrous move. I believe too many voters in our nation are now dependent on entitlements and/or just have that entitlement attitude. I believe that too many movers and shakers within the ranks of government do not have the best interest of the people in mind. I believe that generally speaking…our political leaders are corrupt and spineless cowards. I know that sounds mean…but I believe it. And I’m angry! As far as I’m concerned, every one of our political leaders should be charged with treason …because they have either directly or indirectly contributed to the corruption of our country via not honoring their oath to uphold the constitution. If you’re a political leader and you take exception to what I just said…tell me what actions you are taking right now to stop legal abortion in this country…to fight against the persecution of the Christian faith? I would not want to enact Article V in this environment. Let’s get more constitutional leaders in office first!

PBS - April 19, 2016

When questioned about the type of government the United States would have, Ben Franklin reportedly said, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The country still has the legal structure of a constitional republic but it has not been kept very well based on kangaroo, nanny state, socialist, corruption down to the grass roots level. Mob rule.
An empire of debt with no child left a dime is, in essence, a fundamental moral failure of the people which cannot be corrected by more good writing; we already have the good writing. What the country lacks today is the sound hearts, minds, and scruples of the people of the founding generation. The reality of a parasitic mob cannot be corrected by more good writing alone. Not even if the good writing could pass the mob’s daunting gauntlet.

Ken Metz - April 19, 2016

Yes, a convention, just like a Trump Presidency, would open a ‘Pandora’s box’.
But, we can’t survive as a free country the way things are going…

Phillip Williams - April 19, 2016

I do not believe that the best way to ADVANCE freedom is via constitutional amendments. I believe that amendments are a tool of lawmakers and can be used for either good or evil. If the amendment is “good” (constitutionally sound), then an amendment is great! If the amendment is “evil” (unconstitutional), then an amendment is terrible and debilitating to freedom! Lawmakers are charged with discerning “good” from “evil”. The “people” have entrusted them with that charge. If the amendment “checks” with the Constitution, then the amendment is “good”. If the amendment does NOT “check” (or line up) with the Constitution, then the amendment is “evil”. It’s really not complicated! (I have learned that ANYTIME a subject has gotten complicated, evil is involved…and that evil, every time, is either pride/lust/greed for money/power or all of the above!) The whole rub is that lawmakers…generally speaking…have caved-in and continue to compromise what they KNOW is right for “the people”. They cater to, or give-in to, those who bark the loudest or have the most to offer for their personal gain…whether it be money or prestige…the result is more personal POWER for the lawmaker. So the problem is runaway corruption within ALL three branches of our government. Corruption here meaning…they are not abiding by their oath to uphold the US Constitution! We have laws, but any law is useless without accountability! So the question in my mind is two-fold: How do we GET the corruption out of the three branches of government and how do we KEEP it out for future generations while staying true to the law and intent of our Constitution? Article V is certainly very interesting to me! Phillip’s two-cent’s worth!

I do not believe that Article V is a viable option right now. I believe it could prove to be a disastrous move. I believe too many voters in our nation are now dependent on entitlements and/or just have that entitlement attitude. I believe that too many movers and shakers within the ranks of government do not have the best interest of “the people” in mind. I believe that generally speaking…our political leaders are corrupt and spineless cowards. I know that sounds mean…but I believe it. And I’m angry! As far as I’m concerned, every one of our political leaders should be charged with treason …because they have either directly or indirectly contributed to the corruption of our country via not honoring their oath to uphold the constitution. If you’re a political leader and you take exception to what I just said…tell me what actions you are taking right now to stop legal abortion in this country…to fight against the persecution of the Christian faith? I would not want to enact Article V in this environment. Let’s get more constitutional leaders in office first

Phillip Williams - April 19, 2016

I apologize for all the edits! My bad!

Dave Yoder - April 19, 2016

No. We need to elect Congressmen/women who will use the power of the purse to stop an overzealous President or a too activeness judicial branch. If the departments, agencies & discretionary budgets are not appropriated they have to quit. We do not need well over80% of the anyway.

Barbara LaRue - April 19, 2016

I believe we are at a point that we must highly consider an Article V Convention as this Government is totally out of control especially if the Repub’s screw up and Hiliiary wins the Presidency. The way it was explained to me I have no concerns that we would get bad amendments out of this or a run away convention. Congress will never fix itself and it seems that we cannot get rid of RINO’s with elections as there are too many un-informed voters so this is the next step. Done right it will work and I think we have some very compete people working on this. I believe the time is now.

Donovan Allen - April 19, 2016

Yes, we need to have a Convention of the States & soon. We need to repeal the 17th amendment now. We need term limits for all branches of government: 12 years for congress & supreme court just for starters.

Jim Jess - April 19, 2016

Amending the Constitution is certainly one tool at our disposal, especially when it concerns the opportunity to more clearly define the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government. But we must keep moving on all fronts simultaneously. It is quite obvious that our Constitution has been abandoned by many in public office. Amending it will be ignored by some, but the process will also draw attention to the failure of public officials and the power of the states to act.

David Kennedy - April 19, 2016

Many years ago, conservatives were considering holding a Constitutional Convention for a reason that I agreed with, but have forgotten what it dealt with because it was determined that too many liberals would get involved and water down any positive results.

Jack Rough - April 19, 2016

I think that we would be better off to correct the current law to reflect the Constitution than open up the subject of adding currently Unconstitutional balderdash

Robert N. McFarland - April 19, 2016

Given that the GOP is completely ineffective and Washington elites hold on to power, the Convention of the States may be worth the risks. Absolutely nothing will change with the current leadership in Congress. I’ll take my chances!

Phillip Davis - April 19, 2016

The two major political parties have virtually wrecked this nation to the point that our liberties as individuals have been eroded with the nation so far in debt we may never fix it. In fact the Founders and Framers would be shocked to say the least, that what they feared has come to fruition; a non-limited government. I believe the loss of direct appointment of State Senators has removed the States from the process of the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government. After all it was the States that formed the Federal Government not the other way around. I firmly believe that repealing the 17th Amendment would return the States the power that is rightly theirs alone; thwarting “Carpet Baggers” from popping into a State and running for Senator.
One last item would be of course Term Limits: Term limits would resolve many issues we face today, which of course range from far outside the U.S. Constitution to Cronyism, back room deals and a closed system of only the “Good Old Boys Club” mentality in the Republican and Democratic Parties. I believe these two parties have virtually destroyed the nation as it was founded!
We must remember, humans are not infallible and they either intend good or evil at the end of the day. We must do our best and from time to time, through the experiences of time make appropriate changes to guard against the evils of mankind.
Phil Davis

William Coates - April 19, 2016

Properly comprehending the original intent and the life experience of the writers of the Constitution is required. Then the courts must be restored to a proper approach to interpretation. Today’s education system has failed completely in the areas of history and reasoning and ethics.This society will inevitably crash and burn, and lose its technology, and have to start over from about an 1880 level. The hard-working survivors will understand reality much better. They will not elect power-seekers to rule over them, and they will not keep them in office long enough to become corrupt as is the case today.

Paul Stackhouse - April 19, 2016

The problem with an Article V Convention is that it is wide open and anything can be discussed and voted on. In addition the present Congress would set the agenda and control the process I believe. The current Congress is incapable of understanding Constitutional issues because they don’t know how to reign in an out of control Judiciary and Executive branches.

Richard Schilling - April 19, 2016

The Founder’s Constitution firewalls have been breached. Our Republic is crumbling. Congress is unable or unwilling to confront an imperial President. Only Article V has a chance to return our nation to a Republic the Founders intended.

Paul Feeser - April 19, 2016

The heart of the matter is that the Constitution and the will of the People have been violated by a radical judiciary which has no right to legislate, for decades. This is just and necessary.

John Gray - April 19, 2016

While we certainly need to reign in the Federal Government and many other officials, there is no guarantee that the results of the Constitutional Convention would be successful in getting the needed changes. There was once a time a few short decades ago when the press was honest and even handed when reporting the news, but today they spin the news anyway they want to suit their agenda. In addition, most people won’t take the time to read the proposed changes; they will rely on the media to tell them what the changes are and that won’t be honestly reported. Then, even if we were successful in getting the desired Constitutional changes approved, we are still dependent on our Government officials to obey the law. Recent experience has shown that our current administration and appointees do not feel obligated to abide by the Constitution and/or any law with which they disagree. To make bad matters worse, those Government officials/agencies who are responsible for implementing checks and balances (e.g., Congress, Justice Department) are not willing to take action (e.g., bring charges, impose justice) against this lawless administration, activist judges/justices, governors, mayors, etc. It seems that all branches of the government have been infiltrated with numerous lawless appointed and elected officials. In short, the Constitution is probably OK as is, but many of those, who have sworn to uphold it … but don’t … must be replaced with honest representatives. Getting the current, bought representative of special interests lobbyists out of office would go a long way to curing the ills that we are currently experiencing.

Richard Juhnke - April 19, 2016

What we are dealing with has existed for over 30 years and it keeps getting worse. We have gotten to the point that we do not reelect representatives that do not support us, their constituents. Even that has amounted to ‘nothing meaningful’ in terms of reining in the WH, the growth of the Federal Government and uncontrolled, irresponsible spending. We are broke both financially and morally.
There are risks to a Constitutional Convention but is that a good reason for us to make no effort to recover and protect the freedoms we hold so dear? In doing nothing we only allow more of the unacceptable systematic stripping away of our freedoms.

Irvin Neargarder - April 19, 2016

I think the Constitution is just fine the way it is.

Peter DeRosa - April 19, 2016

Those in Washington violate the Constitution as it is, with impunity.
We need to see the Constitution enforced.

Carol Mattick - April 19, 2016

THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM AN EVER EXPANDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS NO LONGER LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM. THIS CONVENTION OF STATES ARE ABLE TO TAKE BACK THE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT WHICH BELONG TO EACH STATE AND THE PEOPLE.

Tamara Colbert - April 19, 2016

Anyone who opposes using the Constitution to save America is daft–and not a true believer in the intent of one of the greatest Constitution’s in the history of the world, or you’re willfully ignorant. America’s Founders included this brilliant “emergency button” for exactly this time. These guys lived under tyranny and knew that conglomerated federal power would eventually become bloated and corrupt (if you don’t think we are there now, you really need your head examined). The final check and balance on federal power remains with THE PEOPLE–exactly as it is supposed to be. Article V (section 2) allows the people through their state legislatures to put DC back into its constitutional box when necessary. It is now necessary. We can hand-wring all we want to, but opponents who say “Pandora’s box” will be opened and “special interest” will take it over are using misinformation by opponents who are using that misinformation for fundraising purposes. Thank goodness that George Washington did not let fear grip him before he crossed the Delaware on Christmas night. Did he KNOW with 100% certainty he would beat the Hessians? NO. Was he afraid. Absolutely. But Washington crossed the Delaware anyway. Why? Because the price of being enslaved to a central/big government (the Brits) was worth the fight to be free. Anyone who doesn’t think that our freedom is worth this step, continue hand-wringing. I will work tirelessly, energetically and passionately with the Convention of States Project to help save America. DC has demonstrated time and again that they will never limit themselves, their time in office, their avarice, their greed or their power. That means, that in lieu of revolution, we use our intellect and the legality of the US Constitution to not just remind them who they work for, but we put amendments in place that will ensure the People are the ultimate watchdogs for freedom. We will have the final say in the country and government we desire. We the People, if we still have the “will” can make American great again–and not think we have to depend on a single man to do it. Join the real battle: http://www.conventionofstates.com.

Henry C. Holder - April 19, 2016

No, the constitution provides what is required to amend, as Texas is presently doling along with other states.

Sally Crino - April 19, 2016

No. Our leaders do not follow the Constitution as it is–why do we think they will follow an amended Constitution.
Elect people to office who not only say they love the Constitution but also will follow up by adhering to it!
Defend it — Don’t Amendment!!!

Garrett Humbertson - April 19, 2016

It’s high time we take advantage of our two strengths: the Constitution, and the states. An Article V Convention of States combines these strengths. It’s the only way we’ll ever get term limits and a balanced budget amendment to finally stop politicians spending my generation’s money endlessly. The states can only meet when 2/3 (34) have agreed on the subject matter. Convention of States Project calls for an Article V Convention to impose fiscal restraints, term limits, and reduce the jurisdiction of the feds. They have 1.3 million supporters, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and active legislation in 30+ states!

Harold Provins - April 19, 2016

No it is not,The last thing we need is to let these neo coms mess with the constitution
There is no stopping them & the damage would be done.

Judy Craig - April 19, 2016

No, I think it is a very dangerous thing to do. It is better to have the constitution enforce using a strict constitutional bases for decision making and for the Supreme Court to rule on a strict constitutional bases and stop legislating.

Terry Richmond - April 19, 2016

A few years ago I learned to read and my life has been much easier since then. Article V is a safe way to fix Washington with an amending convention. For a “Heritage Legal Scholar…” to title this fear mongering piece a Con-Con just shows he cannot.

BTW I am also a Sentinel….

Roy Draper - April 19, 2016

No, I think that a Con-Con at this time in our history is too dangerous to the quality of freedom we have today, which unfortunately is not as great as it was in the decades of the past. Article V of the constitution gives no direction on how to set up Con-Con, and frankly I do NOT trust our politicians from either party to accomplish anything that would “make” the constitution better than what was basically established in 1789. I’m afraid the first and second amendments would be thrown out of the constitution of 1789 by present time members of our society.

Mark Everly - April 19, 2016

While I suppose we could argue regarding the likelihood of whether an Article V convention of states could be co-opted by liberals for purposes contrary to the explicit limitations included in the states’ resolutions calling for the convention (see http://www.conventionofstates.com), I believe that this argument is rendered moot by the larger considerations. Namely, that the Federal Government is out of control; that it has demonstrated over decades of increasing governmental waste, corruption, abuse and overreach that it is incapable of controlling or fixing itself and; that an Article V convention is the only solution, offered by anyone, that has a logical chance of reversing the trends and changing the larger picture (which is one of American decline). Further, while one cannot deny the need for “careful consideration”, it should also be noted that our situation is grave and the need for action is urgent.
Our governmental problems stem largely from a lack of a balance of power, as described in Mr. Ward’s article. As long as we allow so much power to be concentrated in a centralized government (or worse, a single branch or an individual in that government), we will continue to see waste, corruption, abuse of power and overreach of previously accepted limits. Only by restoring a healthy division and balance of power can we expect to see a reversal of the current (and long-standing) trends. Once again, it seems the framers of the constitution were right regarding their designs for government and, many of the changes Americans have allowed in the last 200+ years (especially in the last 100 years) have resulted in the current sorry state of affairs.
For those who fear an Article V Convention of States because they foresee a loss of constitutional protections, consider how little stock the current Federal Government puts in the constitution…it is largely ignored. With that in mind, the risk of a “run-away” convention is not significant. Further, the small chance of such a “run-away” convention and the similarly small chance that any amendments that further infringe on individual and states’ rights are thereafter ratified by 33 states, makes the insignificant risk very unlikely to occur. Does fear of an insignificant and unlikely risk justify inaction that will undoubtedly lead to the continued erosion our individual rights and constitutional protections (ironically, the same protections that you fear losing in the first place?). I think not.

Albert (Alberto) Castro Jr - April 19, 2016

Absolutely! Return sovereignty to the States.

Tom Brick - April 19, 2016

The process by which states support an Article V convention is restrictive in that all 34 states that resolve to hold a COS must all request the convention for the same, limited reasons. Furthermore, the states choose the delegates which must adhere to the rules set up by the 34 states requesting a COS. Delegates can be immediately recalled by the individual states whom the delegates represent should the delegates stray from their appointed duties and sworn allegiance. Thirty-eight states are required to approve an amendment. Conversely, only 13 states are required to thwart passage of any amendment. In conclusion, an Article V COS is the only tool available to states to reign in the rampant and significantly illegal growth of the federal government. I strongly urge support of this effort as the one tool so save our nation from the greed and corruption of the political elite. Return the power of government to We The People. Support the Convention of States Project.

Joshua Kavanagh - April 19, 2016

Yeah, we have to amend the Constitution, because we can’t hold the Supreme Court accountable. The Supreme Court has bent every ambiguous phrase in the Constitution’s text, and we need to clarify what SCOTUS has distorted.

Also, Mike Farris has extensively written on why the Convention of States could not go beyond its state imposed limits.

Gary Rosenbaum - April 19, 2016

Article V was added by Alexander Hamilton so the States and their representatives would be able to have a voice in what could be added to our Constitution, and not just the cronies in DC. We need to come together as a country and let these career politicians know we are feed up with their spending, limit their terms for the Congressional & Judicial branches, and remove Presidential Executive orders. We should demand they participate in Social Security and not have their own separate plan for life that we pay for!!! An Article V convention would start the process where WE THE PEOPLE would start a dialog in each state to ensure our voice would be heard!!!! Our representatives are not listening to us & they are for sure not going to limit themselves in either spending or terms. That’s why Article V was added. Nothing happens when GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING!!! Lets do this!!!

Col. Warren Bulette - April 19, 2016

We need the convention because Congress will not reform: itself to live under the laws that citizens live under, eliminate pensions, put in term limits, consumption tax to replace the income tax code, entitlements, balance the budget, cut and limit spending, restore power to the states, right to work, reduce the deficit, etc. Worth the risk because citizens are fed up

Michael Codding - April 19, 2016

We don’t need to advance freedom, we need to reclaim lost freedoms using an Article V Convention to discuss controls and limits for the federal government – including the judicial department. A convention can only propose Constitutional amendments supported by 2/3 of the states and then the ratification process begins.

charley grissam - April 19, 2016

An article V convention scares me to death. It opens the door to hijacking by libs and special interests and believe me the’re already plotting. BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!

James Kilpatrick - April 19, 2016

My church is studying the constitution. I have learned so much. I think it is time for a constitutional convention and I am working with a group.

Michael Codding - April 19, 2016

Paul Stackhouse is unaware of the limiting nature of the call for a convention and the 50 state rules for commissioners. The Convention is entirely limited by the wording of the applications which must all agree on. More details regarding the process is here: http://www.conventionofstates.com/succeed

Brent Dunklau - April 19, 2016

How in the world did this nonsense get past the editors at Heritage?

If I didn’t know better I would swear this site had been hacked.

Of course we should have a convention of states to rein in the federal government. We should’ve had one decades ago when the Supreme Court first started stretching the meanings of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause.

Had the states been using Article V all along the way Madison envisioned in Federalist 85, we would not now have all these knuckleheads and conspiracy theorists scaring everyone with misinformation.

nancy suits - April 19, 2016

yes. This is the only solution. Look at the first 10 Amendments- the Bill of Rights. Are these not the basic “freedoms”? The states created the federal government. It is the states that must call a Convention of States to amend and rein in the federal bureaucracy.

Daniel Opeka - April 19, 2016

Our system today is broken….doing nothing
insures the continued deterioration of our way of life. The feds won’t do what it takes
to make the needed corrections and as a result the decline continues. The Framers put an Article V in place because they saw this day coming!!!! We need a Convvention of States NOW !!!! Visit :
http://www.conventionofstates and sign the petition, get off your duff and help!!!

Donna Dover - April 19, 2016

Yes! We should do all we can to “reinvigorate federalism.” The Founders gave us a great system of balanced/shared governing powers, but we’ve gotten away from that.

W Scarlett - April 19, 2016

We need fresh air in Congress. Term limits would help but all Conservatives voting would do it.

walter r henderson - April 19, 2016

An Article V convention is imperative. BUT we must also change the climate in Washington. It is time to LIMIT ALL TERMS for ALL POLITICIANS in Washington. That why if they don’t do “The People’s Bidding” then they are OUT!!

Chris Smith - April 19, 2016

The Amendments being proposed are outlined within the pplication if the 34 states applying for the application for the convention. If for example 34 states apply for an application to balance the budget, the convention will merely be for proposing a balanced budget amendment. Anything outside of proposing amendments for balalancing the budget, would be automatically unconstitutional! There is no logical reason to not push for our state legislators to apply for calling a convention of the states for proposing amendments to the constitution to reel in the over-reaching federal bureaucracy! States were intended to have the most power under our form of government! Not subservient slaves to federal tyranny!

James C. Scheuer - April 19, 2016

Liberals could make a mockery of conservative attempts to improve on the Constitution.

Pamela weber - April 19, 2016

Yes, absolutely. Congress won’t do it for us, so the states must. It is our patriotic duty to call for the article V when the federal government gets too big and tyrannical!

William Ely - April 19, 2016

I used to respect the Heritage Foundation, but it seems to be, despite my original perception, has not done their research, has not reviewed the latest information on an Article V Convention of States. And they promote the Constitution and our country’s heritage? Shame on you. Do your research and help save our country.

Jan B. - April 19, 2016

Our three branches of government are not obeying the Constitution and the laws we have now. Changing the Constitution will not solve the problem.

Michael Alexander - April 19, 2016

How telling it is that the vast majority of the comments here by those who oppose an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution are based on fear and an alarming ignorance, not only of the process, but of the Founders’ original intent.

As is widely documented and readily available to anyone motivated to inform themselves, the authors of the Constitution wisely anticipated the day when the federal government would attempt to put itself beyond the reach of the states, and would eventually fail or refuse to respond to the needs and demands of the People. They clearly intended that Article V be used by the states to propose amendments to the constitution independent of congressional interference, in order to repair the defects perceived in the course of self-governance. It is the states, after all, that created the federal government, thus ceding to the states original supremacy.

These nay-sayers would do well to put aside their anxieties for a moment and examine our history and the character of the men and women behind it… perhaps, then, the courage, faith and determination of the Founders will replace their alarm and trepidation.

Mike Wammack - April 19, 2016

No convention! First demonstrate we can enforce the laws we have before creating other laws which are just as likely to be ignored!

Richard Franklin - April 19, 2016

Our founding fathers foresaw exactly what is happening to our country today and gave us, the people, the means to correct an overbearing government. That method is the vote. When people refuse to exercise that powerful tool then we get exactly what we deserve. The only way to save our nation is for the people to elect honest and true representatives and leaders. We already have a constitution which, if followed, will allow all men the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are no laws which can stop the progressive march, they just ignore the constitution or pass illegal laws with the approval of complicit courts. What could we do if people really cared and the voter turnout were 90% or higher? We must look inward—we allowed this to happen and only we can change it with our vote for honest, limited government. Don’t hold a convention, the dangers far outweigh any possible gains. If there were a convention, just exactly what would you change in our founding document that could make it better? Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the existing amendments and be very careful as to what you would change in that inspired document.

Michael Smart - April 19, 2016

We need to build a moral and informed electorate. One the desires Constitutionally limited government. Right now, we have an immoral and ill-informed electorate. They desire a nanny state to one degree or another. They elect politicians at the state and federal levels who reflect those views. Allowing them an opportunity to “operate” on the Constitution is a profoundly bad idea. The Constitution isn’t the problem. In-adherence to, and usurpation of, the Constitution is the problem.

Michael Alexander - April 19, 2016

An Article V Convention of the States is an assembly of delegates selected by the people at the state level, limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that, if ratified, would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, would limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and would limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

We all know what the problems are… now we can actually DO something about it!

http://www.ConventionOfStates.com

Denis Stolfi - April 19, 2016

The scope of the actual Article V Call Resolutions of the State Legislatures are not specific in terms of actual Amendments to be proposed. It CANNOT propose any amendments that diminishes the liberties of the American people, or of some of the people. The scope of the Convention is to “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.” Nothing can be discussed that is outside that scope. The Bill of Rights is NOT in that scope and CANNOT be amended. To be clear, it is not a constitutional convention. It is a meeting of the states who will propose amendments which they discuss and agree are needed to strengthen the Constitution as structured by the founders. Proposed amendment are voted on by the state commissioners at the Convention and passed by 26 states before they can be presented to the states for ratification by 38 states. The convention is authorized by the Constitution under Article V and must follow the Constitution’s amendment process the same way that Congress follows the amendment process. Congress today has amended the Constitution 27 times, but Congress cannot rewrite the entire Constitution under a constitutional convention. Congress follows the same laws and processes as there is for an Article V Convention of the States. The Convention of States cannot change the Constitution, it can only propose amendments to it. Neither Congress nor the state’s acting under Article V is the same as the original constitutional convention in Philadelphia.
The out of control Federal Government is a big problem and the Convention of States is a “Solution as big as the problem” and We the People will benefit by supporting it. Decisions affecting we citizens need to be made at the state and local levels. Federal bureaucrats not elected by the people should not be passing laws dictating how we are to live in our states and towns. The convention of states is to bring the decision-making back to the people at the local levels so we can hold our local state representatives accountable for those decisions. For the full understanding of the movement go to: http://www.conventionofstates.com

Rick Bulow - April 19, 2016

If the Constitution is fine, as Carol says, then it would not have been amended by the Bull of Rights and 17 other amendments. Luckily, Article V calls for another way to amend the Constitution outside of the federal Congress, and that is for the states to apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to THIS CURRENT Constitution.

kevin t mabin - April 19, 2016

yes all of the above. convention of the state enable us.

Dave Walker - April 19, 2016

I think there would be a great deal of danger that it could be hijacked by some radical group, and make things worse. Remember, a large number of people think Bernie and socialism are ok.

Robin Smith - April 19, 2016

Some, speak of an Article V convention as if it were the first option sought. However, it is instead one of last resort. Men of today their words mean nothing, elect them on their words and they will disappoint you.

In times past “Perls of wisdom” like ” If you don’t like the way your government is being run vote them out and vote someone in that will change it (the system”). We would even utter these sentiments when others were rioting in the street over some perceived injustice.

Our naiveté admittedly reached a level somewhere even above “Trump’s” ego. We had failed to understand the ruling culture that was developing betwixt and between our elected representatives on both the left and the right.

Our representatives, with few exceptions, like Cruz are but placeholders to prevent other spoilers like Cruz from blockbusting, so to speak, their corrupt ruling class culture.

So, I can only see a Article V Convention as an obligatory, debt owed to the founding fathers, that their effort, and may I say sacrifices to God and country were not in vain. Name me one of them that would have cowered away from this duty because of some perceived possibility of an undesired outcome.
One additional comment; Do not send men to a convention of the stateswho will swear on stacks of Bibles claiming to be patriots but neither God nor patriotism can be seen in them. Instead, send true Patriots men who will put the country ahead of their personal success and fortunes, and yes even their lives. If this is done I have no fear of the outcome!

Robert Hess - April 19, 2016

Absolutely! Congress has removed themselves from being subject to many of the laws that they have created, thus they have “no skin in the game.” Time to reign them in.

Angie Turner - April 19, 2016

People do not realize that the ORIGINAL MEANING and STRUCTURE of the US Constitution has been gradually changed over the last 100 years primarily by the US Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the constitution … For example, the Geneal Welfare and Commerce Clauses originally meant to LIMIT federal power. Today, however, they are used as an expansion of federal power. Another example of the change in the STRUCTURE of the US Constitution is the creation of the “fourth branch,” the administrative bureaucracies which have the power to legislate, execute and adjudicate law. The Framers meant to divide centralized power to keeep it restrained. Today, we have a far overreaching, even tyrannical federal government by the Framers’ standards.

Angie Turner - April 19, 2016

I favor an Article V, Convention of States (COS) as a peaceful, legal, constitutional remedy whereby “We the People” through the States CHECK federal power and Restore the BALANCE of power back to the States where it belongs in a Constitutional Republic. An Article V, COS uses the Constitution to save the Constitution and Restore the Rule of Law.

Angie Turner - April 19, 2016

People do not realize that the ORIGINAL MEANING and STRUCTURE of the US Constitution has been gradually changed over the last 100 years primarily by the US Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the constitution … For example, the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses originally meant to LIMIT federal power. Today, however, they are used as an expansion of federal power. Another example of the change in the STRUCTURE of the US Constitution is the creation of the “fourth branch,” the administrative bureaucracies which have the power to legislate, execute and adjudicate law. The Framers meant to divide centralized power to keeep it restrained. Today, we have a far overreaching, even tyrannical federal government by the Framers’ standards.

Robert Hammons - April 19, 2016

Adhering to the constitution is the only way to protect and promote freedom!!!!!

Roger Lageschulte - April 20, 2016

I oppose such a convention because of the potential of it becoming a “run away” event.The better choice is to work toward the election of conservatives constitutionalists in our regular elections and take back the constitution and our freedoms that way.

Don Sutton - April 20, 2016

The most dangerous thing is to do nothing, and allow the Tyrannical Federal Government to continue ignoring the Constitution. The best tool for stopping them is provided in Article V of the Constitution. The State legislatures must use this tool now.

Carroll Williams - April 20, 2016

Supreme Justice Scalia was wholeheartedly in favor of an Article V convention of the states, and had little fear that it might get out of hand for the reason that you stated in the article. The constitution has worked for many years, but now it needs to be clarified, such as the definition of a Natural born citizen, and return our constitution to it’s original meaning, instead of the so-called living constitution. Our Federal government only had, I believe, 17 specific powers and all the rest of the power was given to the states or the people. We have let political activists get away with changing the constitutional meaning. I don’t think the future looks good ahead if no changes are made, so I tend to side with Mr. Scalia in believing we need the Convention of States to return us to at least close to our original meaning in the constitution. I believe we also have a majority of conservative Governors at present, and I believe it is very unlikely that the convention could get out of hand, and allow someone like Bloomberg eliminate our rights to firearms, or other similar disastrous changes. We definitely need term limits to eliminate much of the cronyism that results in campaign donations in exchange for cheap labor or other favors, and definitely a mandatory national budget, and perhaps a better way to rein in a president such as what we have now, that has us on the brink of socialism or a loss of our sovereignty as a nation.

Joseph Stepongzi - April 20, 2016

The answer is yes! For facts please visit conventionofstates.com. I will add one brief opinion: Anyone calling the amendment convention a “con-con,” has no clue to what Article V actually says and would do well to educate themselves before commenting further. This term is commonly used by detractors to scare others in believing that the process would actually destroy the existing governing framework, the Bill of Rights, and what little we have left of our liberties. It does no such thing… The convention is called for a specific subject matter, and limiting the Federal government is not the same as governmental expansion…

Again, please visit conventionofstates.com for more, and better, information.

Michael Dalrymple - April 20, 2016

3 points:
1 We got the present Constitution because a convention called to propose amendments decided amending was insufficient. There is nothing that could prevent that from happening again, with much worse results given today’s political and economic education of most US citizens.
2. If we (supposed “conservatives”) cannot elect enough delegates to Congress to prevent the undermining of our rights “guaranteed” by the Constitution, we are unlikely to control the processes and delegate selection to a Convention either. There is just as great a likelihood that what is produced at a convention will be detrimental to our goals as positive. Then we would be in the position of having to prevent passage of “harmful” amendments as well as advocating for “good” ones.
3. Put the effort into educating upcoming generations about the value and meaning of liberty. That is the only way to ensure it is preserved. Even though the Constitution has not changed dramatically, the role of government under it has.

Trevor Dupuy - April 20, 2016

Article V Amendment Convention would be appropriate for those matters that the States can’t correct, by simply invoking their 10th Amendment Rights to interpose on behalf of their citizens and nullify unconstitutional federal laws and actions. An Art V Convention should only address one issue per convention to insure it doesn’t become a runaway convention. A convention also would take months to get an amendment proposal out and then probably years for ratification. State nullification would be speedy if the State already has legislation approved for making a nullification determination. In the past, Heritage has claimed State nullification is unconstitutional but flounders embarrassingly when trying to explain their reasoning. Is that still the case? If so, I think Heritage should take the lead to establish a dialogue on State nullification powers.

Dale Berge - April 20, 2016

Yes I do. We also need to find a way to hold Supreme Court justices to following the law and not make it. It is about time we hold the three branches of government accountable. While were at it let’s impose term limits on these career politicians and break up the “good old boys” club.

Philip Wiley - April 20, 2016

I believe in the Constitution and there is no Question in by mine that Article 5 Convention of States is needed, the sooner the better. At this point and time. there is nothing to lose, were un-moored from the Constitution.

Rick Hodge - April 20, 2016

I cannot believe that so many people are so blind to how much federal government out of control. Fortunately, Founding father George Mason had the foresight to understand that of our country grew, there would be a need to make amendments to our Constitution. He also had the foresight that at some point our federal government would become out-of-control and over reaching its powers. Keep in mind that it was the states that developed our federal government not the other way around. And, the Constitution was written to provide laws that apply to our country at the group of states and to provide a military defense system to protect our country. It also provided a judicial system to hear cases where an interpretation of the Constitution was necessary to resolve any disputes. It was also intended that each individual state was to be a sovereign state governing themselves. But, those elected continue to think that they knew what was best for our country and began to overreach their power and started regulating the states, stripping away the power of our states. Since the founding of our Constitution there had been over 11,000 amendment to our Constitution proposed by Congress and even though Article V permits the states the legal opportunity to propose amendments it has never been done . With the current out-of-control federal government and the astronomical debt our people in Washington has created, it is time to stand up and take back our country, place term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court and do away with career politicians. People need to remember that those elected into office are supposed to represent their constituents or plainly stated they work for the states and individual people of each state and we need to make them accountable. The only way we can do this is an Article V, Convention of Stares which is a democratic process that can only be put into law if 38 states ratify those proposed amendments to our constitution. The only scary thing about a Convention of States is if we fail to ignore this important tool provided to us as a country.

Jeff Kilgren, LTC, USA (Ret) - April 20, 2016

Do not take counsel of your fears! Who do you trust more, your State Governors and Legislatures, or the Washington Cartel (which, by the way, includes The Heritage Foundation, of which I am a paying member). Our State governments, taken collectively, have much more common sense, just because they are closer to the folks with the pitchforks! States would choose the members of the convention and have to ratify any outcomes. We need this…

stephen anderson - April 20, 2016

why would any sane person want the idiots (congress and liberals) to touch the constitution? They live in a crazy, warped world were they want to stop you from eating sugar while they write laws to exempt themselves from the laws. Until we have a honest and balanced political system, the idiots should only be held tight to protect and serve the constitution. Do you want the idiots that took the 1st amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” to become “”Separation of church and State”???

Jodi Magee - April 20, 2016

If this presidential election is any indication, the American people lack understanding of their Constitution. The present generation of Americans do not have the knowledge, understanding, or wisdom to improve upon our Constitution as written. We should uphold the Constitution, not determine to change it.

Kenneth W Payauys - April 20, 2016

The presently voiced concerns about an Article V Convention are really about EXCESSIVE [Washington, D.C.] POWER (at the federal level by the Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial branches) that has grown across the 227 subsequent years. The 10th Amendment – written so long ago by a concerned citizenry and the States – amply forewarns: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, we are simply observers of the Power Struggle among the affected groups: Federal, States, and We The People. Any, present issues-worries were likely discussed by the former Convention Delegates, and recorded, long ago. ~

Larry Thurston - April 20, 2016

It’s the only way you’re going to get term limits on members of congress and senate. They are so entrenched, they think they deserve to serve 20 plus years and draw a nice retirement. That’s just one thing an article V convention could fix.

laura - April 20, 2016

Article V was included in the Constitution for the problem we face today: a federal government that disregards the will of the people and continues to grow in power. The bottom line is that they’ll never limit their own power. It’s time for the states to act.

Bruce Hubbell - April 20, 2016

The writer makes the same mistakes of ignorance that the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum make: confusing a Constitutional Convention with an Article 5 convention of states to propose amendments. A Constitutional Convention throws out the present Constitution and writes a new one from scratch. That’s illegal. An Article 5 convention of states does EXACTLY what Congress does: propose amendments to the Constitution, and then send that (those) amendments to the 50 states for ratification.

The amendments that come out of an Art. 5 convention have to meet the same criteria as those proposed by congress. 3/4 of the State Legislatures have to ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. Put another way, it will only take 13 states, doing absolutely nothing (not ratifying) an amendment to stop it.

Congress will never fix itself. We the people, via our state legislatures are going to have to do it.

RW Gross - April 20, 2016

The risk of continuing down the current path the US is on, is far, far greater than any of the risks associated with a Convention of States. The worst thing that could flow out of a Convention of States is a proposal so radical that thirteen states refuse to ratify it.

We have a federal government operating outside the bounds of the Constitution using the judicial branch to make interpretations counter to the intent of the framers or benefit of our country. It is not going to correct itself.

Laurie - April 20, 2016

YES! We do not HAVE a Constitution as we speak!!! – an Article V CONVENTION OF STATES amendment has to be agreed to by each States rep first! Yes. You know how long that may take! Yeah, some time…. So, why not take this great risk, that, by the way, a lot of great minds agree to guide it and go for it? I say try it and if it becomes soooo horrible, then drop it! What IF we do not try? What then? Do YOU have a suggestion to STOP these out of control USURPERS that get elected one way, and govern diff? THEY WILL NOT STOP ON THEIR OWN, EVER.

S Pettit - April 20, 2016

An Article V Convention is merely a Constitutionally sanctioned way for representatives of the people and the States (as opposed to Congress) to draft, consider and propose amendments. The exact same ratification language that prevents a runaway Congress from enacting ill advised amendments also applies to any amendment proposed by a convention of states. If it is sufficient to constrain one, why not the other?

S Pettit - April 20, 2016

Calling a convention, other than in response to an application of the States, is not among the enumerated powers of Congress. With or without the “necessary and proper” clause, is Congressional power to convene a convention not derivative from, and limited by, the terms of the application of the States?

S Pettit - April 20, 2016

The POTUS changes the Constitution with his pen and his phone. Five unelected lawyers on SCOTUS change it when they please. Congress routinely changes it to enhance its power. Why are we afraid to let the States and the people, who suffer at their hands, get involved in the process?

Roger Bergmeier - April 20, 2016

No!

At this time there are no rules as to how the delegates to a CON/CON would be selected. Would there be any restrictions on amendments to be addressed. I personally think we need a national movement writ of mandamus to force the Congress and the Administration to follow the constitution we have now. If a change is needed we should use the amendment process for individual issues, not a full blown convention. Maybe a good start would be term limits and a balanced budget amendment. We should also consider an amendment that provides for hard rules for the operation of the House and Senate. As an example it is absolutely crazy to allow one person such as the Senate majority leader to prevent bills from getting a vote of the or even being assigned to the proper committee. Thanks for the opportunity to put in my two bits.

Roger Bergmeier – April 20, 2016

Susan - April 20, 2016

Our Founding Father’s put Article V in the Constitution specifically for times like these. It gives the States and We the People the authority to reign in a Fed. Govt. that becomes oppressive. George Mason knew that the Fed. Govt. would not put limits on itself or diminish it’s power. What I hear, and it is almost the only thing I hear, is the fear from legislators that a convention will be a “runaway” and propose amendments that will rewrite the constitution and take away our freedoms and liberty. It has been expressed that this is “dangerous” because this could result in loss of our right of free speech and our right to keep and bear arms. Putting aside the 228 year history of multi-state conventions that clearly refutes such theory, let’s just consider a few points.

Once the required number of states has passed an application and before such a convention would convene, State Leg. would have several responsibilities to discharge.
They must select delegates to represent the citizens/state and they must have written commission to them for the convention. Knowing fully that you will be held accountable by your constituents for the job you do in this matter, let me just ask a few simple questions.
Would State Leg. not fully vet anyone being considered to be a delegate? Would State Leg. knowingly select delegates that they felt would disobey their commission? Would State Leg. knowingly or unadvisedly write the commission without making their duties clear and unequivocal? Would State Leg. leave out of the commission the instruction to require they rise to object to any proposal that is outside the topic the State Legs. passed in the application? Do you really believe no state would have a single delegate who would object? Would State Leg. not follow the convention proceedings to be sure they are doing what they sent them there for? Would State Leg. not recall immediately any delegate who violates the commission?
But now let’s take it to the next step. Say it happens and the discussion goes to the floor that a proposal to limit the 1st or 2nd amendment be put to a formal vote. I ask, do you see any chance that the majority of delegates from 26 states is going to vote in favor of sending the State Legislature, those amendments for ratification? Would States ratify them? If a runaway convention full of runaway delegates who come from the 45 states with open carry defy all logic and the instructions of State Leg. written commission, send this to the legislature for ratification, do you see 38 of the very same 45 state legislatures that passed open carry laws even considering a 180 degree turn about and ratifying away the 2nd amendment? Or free speech?
Is fear what our nation was built on? Were our founders afraid to stand up for liberty? Would you sit back and do nothing when our nation may well be depending on reforming a federal government that will not reform itself? Or do you HOPE Congress will abide by the constitution and fix what is wrong with Washington, D.C.? And do you HOPE the Supreme Court will stop the next tyrannical President from issuing law by executive fiat? Or do you HOPE there won’t be another President who takes it upon himself to go around the Congress when he doesn’t get what he wants? And lastly, do you have the courage to be like the founders and secure our Liberty?

Penny Bonadonna - April 20, 2016

If a convention could be called for a specific purpose, a balanced budget amendment, for example, that might be advantageous. But a convention called with no clear purpose would, I think, be a disaster. I’m sure there are as many progressives who would like to see the Constitution amended (if not outright abandoned) as there are conservatives, but they sure wouldn’t agree on what those amendments should be. Seems to me that could just make everything worse.

S Pettit - April 20, 2016

Roger–

There is no such thing as a national writ of mandamus. And what court would issue one to limit its own power? The CoS call resolution is crafted to be limited to issues such as the ones you identify. (I could think of others.) Hence my question about Congress’s power being derivative of the States’ application. And in any event, the risk of a “runaway convention”, like that of a “runaway Congress” is mitigated by the exact same ratification provision. Let’s be realistic in how we address the fact that we are now living in a post-Constitutional era.

S Pettit - April 20, 2016

State nullification, like state secession, was tried with tragic consequences in the mid-19th century. That war was lost at the cost of 500,000 lives. Sorry.

Susan Sigler - April 20, 2016

Our debt is over $18 Trillion, our Congress doesn’t represent us, our President and Supreme Court are out of control, and there are no other credible solutions proposed to save the nation for our kids and grandkids. So if not Article V, then what? Look…the country is at stake. You can talk about all the problems…and that’s all that most people do. But this is the only credible solution as big as the problem. So invest some time and go to http://www.cosaction.com/?
recruiter_id=377273 and check it out. Scroll down to “The Problem” for a plethora of information. Also, there are videos that explain it all, from all sides.

Richard Claghorn - April 20, 2016

{t is apparent to me that the use of amendments by Convention has already caused enough damage to the personal freedoms of people that perhaps a repeal of former amendments should be undertaken rather than establishing a new one. Both numbers 16 and 17 are detrimental to our society and government. The repeal of #18 by #21 is a good example of what we need.

Myron Coon - April 20, 2016

I believe the constitution, in its present form, is fine. We just need to live by it, which the current overreaching administration is not doing.

Brent Dunklau - April 20, 2016

How sad that Heritage has abandoned the People and the Constitution and has thrown in with the faction of fear and the misfits of misinformation.

An Article V convention of states is exactly what We The People need.

We *will* have it.

And we *will* remember those who opposed We The People in our righteous effort.

http://www.conventionofstates.com

Larry Haqrt - April 20, 2016

I believe that the Constitutional Convention is the only way that we will ever be able to get American back in line with the Founder’s expectations and our desires. And, I believe that this is necessary no matter who is elected in November.

james - April 20, 2016

yes the people should decide how fix the broken system that the politicians cannot do and have the Supreme Court follow the law as written

James Egan - April 20, 2016

The Constitution is fine as it is, if it would be observed and interpreted in its original state, although I personally believe that the 16th and 17th amendments should be repealed. I believe that an Article V convention would represent an unacceptable risk.

Roberto Brutocao - April 20, 2016

A constitutional convention is not needed, is very dangerous and should be avoided. The present climate of political correctness, lessened appreciation for traditional values and religious beliefs, and reduced liberty for many of us could easily take over and pass constitutional amendments that operate to make matters far worse under the guise of needed “reforms.” We have what we need in this Constitution of ours. What we need is to the hard work of educating the electorate and taking back the elected offices. Most importantly, once reclaimed those politicians need to make a difference and exercise the political will to put things back to the intended course. Not easy to be sure, and we only have ourselves to blame as WE let this madness go on far too long. If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, the collective WE fell asleep.

John B Smith - April 20, 2016

I do because the federal government is not working for the people and there is little to do about it.

Kent Lawson - April 20, 2016

We have un-elected bureaucracies making and enforcing laws and job killing regulations . We have a President who believes that his pen and his phone grant him sole authority to enact laws. We have a Supreme Court loaded with activist judges who believe their opinions dictate constitutionality , and a feckless dysfunctional Congress ceding its constitutional authority to the Executive branch. A national debt that is out of control. Unfunded Liabilities which are un-sustainable. And on , and on , and on. Do you think the cronies that perpetuate this fiasco are ever going to check themselves? It is Article V or the second amendment at this point. Lets try Article V first !

Monica - April 20, 2016

I have spent a great deal of time researching this matter, and I have come to the personal conclusion that the Convention of States is the only solution big enough for the problems in our country. We must bring the power back to the people through the states.

Anne McDade Barrett - April 20, 2016

It is time for “the people” to get more involved in preserving this country and this appears to be the way to do it.

Kathy Wood - April 20, 2016

Article V was made for this time in when tyranny is taking over the country. The founders put Article V in the Constitution because they knew this day would come. The Convention of States will have rules made to follow and protect the Bill of Rights. Washington DC is now a run away convention.

T Metzger - April 20, 2016

Were the Founding Fathers dangerous? Is the Constitution dangerous? This is Article V of the Constitution! Yes, that means the Founders put it in the Constitution. For Heritage to call it a “Constitutional Convention” is blatantly inaccurate and an obvious attempt to mislead readers. An Article V Convention and a Constitutional Convention are not the same. Heritage knows this, but would rather confuse the two to advance their own agenda. Sounds a lot like Congress, doesn’t it? Thank you though for showing your true colors. I will no longer be donating to your organization, which I have done faithfully for the last few years. Clearly your motives are selfish and your tactics ineffective in changing Congress. For a true education on this topic, I encourage everyone to read Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and support Hillsdale College, an institution that truly understands The Constitution, even Article V.

Dave Wolfrum - April 20, 2016

The tool the founders provided in Article V of the Constitution itself was placed there for our use to control a runaway federal government. I absolutely believe it should be used to force congress to return the power to the states. (We the People)

Scott Brooks - April 21, 2016

3 issues in the Constitution need vetting:
1 Gun rights laws, clarification of right to own.
2 Repeal the internal income tax law and replace it with either a flat tax or fair tax alternative.
3 What justifies citizenship. Citizen by birth need clarification

In addition we need a balanced budget amendment. The only exception should be extreme circumstances of national security.
I would add an amendment that prohibits government actions of regulating CO2 on the premise it has any significant effects on climate change.

Jerry Rowe - April 21, 2016

Who Decides?
Americans used to govern themselves. When this nation was founded, the government acted only to protect life, liberty and property. Now, it has encroached into every area of life, so we endlessly debate the healthcare, education, and economic policies our so-called leaders hand down to us. However, the citizens should make these crucial decisions. Who decides? According to the founders and Constitution, we do. Let’s act like it.
Lets use Article V of the Constitution as EVERY Framer of the Constitution intended and agreed to, plus all 13 ratifying states.
And the ConventionOfStates dot com solution is the best one out there.

Anna Green - April 21, 2016

I and very fearful of such a convention at this time in history. I look at the people who have been elected to office time and time again and I have to wonder what my fellow citizens truly want. I believe that the Constitution is great just the way it is. We need to elect leaders that will follow it and not twist it to their empowerment and if they do call them on it. The government, to my way of thinking, is out of control because we have time and again voted in people of little or no integrity.No matter how suave or likable a person is if they are a liar what do I expect when they are in office?

Phillip Williams - April 21, 2016

OK…I repent…I have changed my mind. In my previous post (April 19), I wrote that I was against enacting Article V in this current entitlement environment. I wanted to get more constitutional leaders in office before enacting an Article V. But I now realize that the environment that we’re in now is the very reason that we will NOT be able to get more constitutional leaders in office! This very environment IS what Article V is all about! So, call me a flip-flopper, but after more careful consideration and going back to revisit Article V wording, I’m all in for Article V…not in spite of this environment but because of this environment!

T Metzger - April 21, 2016

Welcome aboard Phillip Williams! You have nailed it. I wish more people would give as much thoughtful study and consideration to this issue as you have. You’re not a flip-flopper, you are a true Patriot!

Bob Henry - April 21, 2016

a famous ride took place on April 18,1775 to warn Hancock and Adams from the British. revere and Dawes were captured but the 3rd rider Prescott escaped to warn the malitia in Conchord after the skirmish in Lexington they were met by 400 patriots waiting for them 241years ago . as Adams reminded us then and the revolution that followed “Posterity!you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom!make good use of it.If not,I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

Peter Krauss - April 21, 2016

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” The fear surrounding the Convention of States is ludicrous and childlike. The genius of our framers was that they built checks and balances even within the checks and balances. Article V is a method set up by the framers with those checks and balances in place. A Convention is called to PROPOSE Amendments; NOT RATIFY them. And it can only be called if 34 States agree. THEN, once the delegates who have been chosen hammer out the details and come up with proposed AMENDMENTS, then and only then, will they be VOTED UPON for ratification in EACH STATE. Moreover, 38 states are needed to RATIFY the newly proposed Amendments. The con con argument is nonsense. If we fail to act on behalf of our posterity our children’s children will curse our generation of comfortable Americans because they will have to shed their blood to regain an ounce of the liberty we currently enjoy. The time is now; call the convention.

Bill graham - April 21, 2016

A convention is the only way we can stop the corruption coming out of Washington DC. Term limits for both congress and the courts and a balanced budget are two amendments the convention could consider.

Tom Vaillancourt - April 22, 2016

Being involved with a group that wants an Article V convention I am very familiar with the arguments for the convention. But I also have reservations. The main one being, What will the character of the delegates to the convention be? Will they be able to say after the convention is done “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”?

Christopher - April 22, 2016

The United States of America………our name says it all folks. Our country was founded on Independent States Rights. The Federal Government was never supposed to be involved in things like educating our children and regulating our land. Telling us what to eat, telling us when and how we can protect out families…….It’s obvious that the federal government is out of control. Spending, regulations, taxes, and $20T deficit ($200T+ unfunded Liabilities), the “leadership” in our federal government has shown that they only care about their own power. The constitutional abuses are endless and the corruption absolute. Congress can’t get things under control. Article V is the only permanent solution . “…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…” http://www.conventionofstates….

Carl Eckles - April 23, 2016

Congress has delegated many of it’s responsibilities to bureaucracies in the executive branch which make rules that have the force of law. This relieves the elected official from having to make politically unpopular decisions. The Judiciary, which was thought to be the weakest branch, has become so political that nine people make law.

Carl Eckles - April 23, 2016

Congress has delegated many of it’s responsibilities to bureaucracies in the executive branch which make rules that have the force of law. This relieves the elected official from having to make politically unpopular decisions. The Judiciary, which was thought to be the weakest branch, has become so political that nine people make law. We need to reestablish a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government and also that with the States.

Charles Dinkel - April 23, 2016

I have not come across any other means of restoring federalism and the Constitution. For the sake of this nation it is critical that this be pursued!

Charles R. Shetron - April 23, 2016

The Constitution needs following not amending. Many of the statutes that are being followed are argueably un-constitutional, and should be legally challenged.

T.E. Sumner - April 23, 2016

If the Constitution is just fine the way it is
then how did Obamacare get passed in Congress and the Supreme Court?
If the Constitution doesn’t need some tweaks to require Congress and the President to operate under a budget,
then how did Harry Reid prevent a budget for 7 years and why are we $19,000,000,000,000 in debt?
If the Constitution is okay without some limits on how long Senators, Congressmen and appointed bureaucrats can serve in office,
then why are the top elected and appointed Federal offices all filled by multi-millionaires?
If the Constitution doesn’t need some clarification of “anchor babies,”
then how is our President able to grant entry to foreigners without legal basis and able to refuse to expel undocumented illegal aliens?
Some commenters have some ‘splaining to do – if it’s all-OK then why is the US such a mess?

Suzy Foss - April 24, 2016

No, I share the fears of many that such a convention would likely backfire on our conservative fight for smaller, more responsible government. Electing conservatives who KNOW the US Constitution and as citizens demanding accountability of all in government service is the clear path to meeting our goals. The problem with this path is that it requires every citizen to join the fight for freedom instead of looking to everyone else to do the job for them.

DanG - April 24, 2016

I say “NO” to a Constitutional convention for the time being. However, once we get a Christian Awakening in full gear, that’s the time for a convention. If no awakening, then no convention.

Larry Parker - April 25, 2016

Bypassing the Constitution of the United States is preposterously dangerous! If you want to see just who would take over those conventions just look at the views of those patriots in the states where it was brought up in the State Legistrations! There are corrupt Progressive millionaires and billionaires waiting in the wings to hijack those conventions for their own agendas!

Paul Adcock - April 25, 2016

Those of you calling this a “dangerous idea”, do you realize that this idea was created by our Founding Fathers????

They actually put it in there in case something like the situation we have in DC happened.

Also, we DO have a problem that has shifted the balance of power away from the states: the 17th Amendment.

Paul Adcock - April 25, 2016

Local governance is what CREATED this nation. We were sick of a distinct group of people making all the decisions for us and asked for our say.

Now, DC is acting worse than King George III ever did and you want us to keep fighting in THEIR corrupt system????

No, it won’t work. We have to take this back at the state and local level and take back our Constitution from there.

Even our Founders knew that over time, corrections would need to be made to keep liberty around. Well, guess what, that time is here and Article V, put in by the Founders, is the way.

Go to http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1858 to find out more.

Paul Adcock - April 25, 2016

[Quote]Carol Morrisey – April 19, 2016

I think the Constitution is just fine the way it is. Opening the door to changes would allow special interests to push for their own agenda, which would not likely be good for the country. [/Quote]

I can assure you, special interests are running rampant in DC. We no longer have representation, as people from BOTH parties can attest to.

While I’ll admit, we DO have issues with special interests at the state and local level, it is not nearly as bad as DC. We have more of a chance this route.

Also, our Congress put in term limits for the President when they saw the need. However, it is very unlikely that 2/3 of them will term limit themselves. And as we have tried to term limit them state by state and been struck down by the Supreme Court, which said that a state law alone cannot term limit a federal official, then only something with federal standing could term limit federal officials. Since the federal officials LIKE their power, they won’t issue this needed legislation themselves. Thus, it has to come from the states and thus our only route is to get constitutional amendments via the state convention process that would term limit federal officials.

Howard Burger - April 25, 2016

I am very concerned that an Article V Convention would open a door that could not be closed without making things worse.

virgil payne - April 26, 2016

Leave the constitution alone.STOP making law from the bench.Sunset all laws.Apply term limits.Stop all retired congressmen from being lobbyists for ten years. Make aii imigrants get in line, Period. Put federal employees and congressmen in JAIL for breaking laws and for violating the constitution, no exceptions.Violatiors of the banned from government employ foever.
Governmert Plan :Divid and Conquer

Denis Stolfi - April 26, 2016

The scope of the actual Article V Call Resolutions of the State Legislatures are not specific in terms of actual Amendments to be proposed. It CANNOT propose any amendments that diminishes the liberties of the American people, or of some of the people. The scope of the Convention is to “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.” Nothing can be discussed that is outside that scope. The Bill of Rights is NOT in that scope and CANNOT be amended. To be clear, it is not a constitutional convention. It is a meeting of the states who will propose amendments which they discuss and agree are needed to strengthen the Constitution as structured by the founders. Proposed amendment are voted on by the state commissioners at the Convention and approved by 26 states before they can be presented to the states for ratification by 38 states. The convention is authorized by the Constitution under Article V and must follow the Constitution’s amendment process the same way that Congress follows the amendment process. Congress today has amended the Constitution 27 times, but Congress cannot rewrite the entire Constitution under a constitutional convention. Congress follows the same laws and processes as there is for an Article V Convention of the States. The Convention of States cannot change the Constitution; it can only propose amendments to it. Neither Congress nor the state’s acting under Article V is the same as the original constitutional convention in Philadelphia.
The out of control Federal Government is a big problem and the Convention of States is a “Solution as big as the problem” and We the People will benefit by supporting it. Decisions affecting, we citizens need to be made at the state and local levels. Federal bureaucrats not elected by the people should not be passing laws dictating how we are to live in our states and towns. The convention of states is to bring the decision-making back to the people at the local levels so we can hold our local state representatives accountable for those decisions. For the full understanding of the movement go to: http://www.conventionofstates.com

Michael Smith - April 28, 2016

No, I do not. We have courts that are interpreting the constitution based on their own political agenda. We have politicians (both sides) that are only interested in getting re-elected, not in doing the right thing for the U. S. We the people must get more involved in the process and elect people who will faithfully follow the constitution.

Phil Grubb - April 28, 2016

No! We do not need to amend it. We need to prosecute and jail those in authority who have been totally ignoring it, and the rule of law. What makes anyone think that the left would not seize on such an opportunity to totally disregard what is left of our freedoms detailed in the Constitution. What we have here is a failure to honor the law as it is written and interpreted by the founders.

Kevin Mason - April 29, 2016

As we have seen in the recent past, our current Constitution is either ignored or misinterpreted by the Supreme Court members and the branches of Government when expedience and agenda suit the powers that be. What guarantee is there that these same entities would act any different after an Article V Convention.
What we need is not more rules, laws or S.C. Justices, but a return to the ethical practice of “interpreting the Constitution” we have.
Judges and Justices are now legislating from their benches, and who ever pays the Piper calls the tune.
Don’t forget, many of the Amendments to the Constitution resulted in weakening the States.. as when the Senate become independent of the Governors of the States.
Much as “Riders” now dictate the success or failure of Bills in the House and Senate, any Convention for/by the States, will also be plagued with Addendum’s, Referendums, obfuscations and other measures designed to protect what some see as their particular powers and rice bowls. A Pandora’s box of nightmarish legislation could be the result at worse, and more ridiculous bureaucracy at best. Then, who will pay for it? You can bet it won’t be in any one’s budget.
It will be in sub-committee for a decade, or until its forgotten.
As previously mentioned, hold your Representatives accountable at the ballot box. Although, voter apathy is extremely high in many places. I live in a city of 500,000 and less than 75 showed up for a Congressman’s Town Hall meeting.

mmowry - April 30, 2016

I fear the judgement of the upper and lower chambers of the legislatures of 38 states than the judgement of 5 un-elected activist judges on the US Supreme Court, especially if the next three justices are appointed by a progressive liberal president. It would take the action of 38 state legislatures to ratify any amendments suggested by a convention of the states and the inaction of only 13 to kill any proposals from being ratified.

Brent Dunklau - April 30, 2016

The founders never intended for the state-led amendment provision to go unused.

http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=12476

Renee Szabo - April 30, 2016

no

diane holzapfel - May 1, 2016

YES!!!!

diane holzapfel - May 1, 2016

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!

Philip C Heitz - May 2, 2016

Amending the Constitution is the Only way to change it. NEVER permit the assembling of a New Constitutional Convention. America’s Founders got it Right but it is an obvious fact that the world changes and the Constitution must be amended. If you seek change, amend it in accordance with the means provided by the Constitution and only with careful deliberation and by following the methods outlined by the Constitution.
An issue that needs highlighting is the Fact that the Declaration of Independence is the Foundation for the Constitution and if the great Principles outlined in that Declaration are ignored Constitution has no Foundation. The Declaration MUST be acknowledged as a Legal Document and the ethical and responsible Principles outlined in the Declaration must be maintained.

Robyn Campbell - May 6, 2016

Why don’t you give another look at COS? You have been mislead. COS is the only way to fix America’s problems. Our founding fathers wanted the states to have mpre power. It was never their intention that government be this big.

Bill McDowell - May 7, 2016

Our federal government has overstepped its authority. The overreach by both the executive branch and the legislative branch has been supported by decisions made by the courts. Convention Of States has an article V application that will allow delegates to propose amendments to rein in all three branches of the federal government.
To sign the petition, volunteer, or just to get more information visit http://www.conventionofstates.com

Bruce Hubbell - May 17, 2016

The key point to remember in an Art. 5 convention of states is that whatever gets passed out of a convention, has to be able to get ratified by 3/4 (38) states. Even if something completely stupid managed to come out of the convention, due to mass hypnosis or drugging all attendees, it would still have to get ratified by the states.

Steven Crain - May 17, 2016

Your first objective should be to level with the American people and get the terminology straight; unless you’re pushing your own personal agenda. The process is a convention of states for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution; such as that underway by the official “Convention of States Project”.

It’s odd and a little dishonest when conservatives are quick to cite the Constitution when a specific provision suits there needs while at other times they want to avoid it’s provisions for who knows what reasons all the while proclaiming that it’s very provision are dangerous. That’ sounds a lot like the tactics Progressives employ… you can’t have it both ways.

Many founders were clearly in support of the “states calling for a convention” as outlined in Article V. This is well documented. Allowing for States to call for a convention shows just how much trust the founders and ratifiers of the constitution put in future generations and were able to predict that one day a “run-away” Congress would never curb it’s appetite for power. This provision is one of the best examples of their support and believe in Federalism.

Calling this a Constitutional Convention is dishonest and a disservice to members of the Heritage Foundation.

P R Ball - May 22, 2016

A convention would not be my first choice due to the unpredictable outcome and time factor. I prefer (a) put a conservative in the White House, (b) elect a conservative Senate, (c) fill every vacancy arising on the Supreme Court with a youngish Constitutional Conservative and (d) view every case coming before the SCOTUS in the light of intended constitutional meaning.

rick amundson - May 28, 2016

A lot of people like the constitution as was originally written. The problem is that Washington is not following it as such and has no intention of doing so any time soon(pen and Phone). Sending new people to Washington is not effective. They either become part of the problem or are rendered inconsequential by the Washington establishment. The solution needs to come from the people. visit http://www.conventionofstates.com for information on how this can happen

Marian Eliason - June 13, 2016

I believe it is necessary to make it very clear what the Federal Government can do and remind them of the rights of the States. We need some way to get rid of lobbied law and return the responsibilities of taking care of our people to the States. We also need to have a way to get rid of Executive Orders.

Jerry C. Porter - April 9, 2019

Fear of a runaway convention is sensible. What about a runaway Congress ne fice given us Unsustainable debt and over reaching government? I’ll take my chances on a runaway Convention if there is hope of empoweing ideas described in Marmentdk Levin’s Liberty Amendments book. Sober and brilliant! Is it too late to salvage our [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.