Senate Joint Resolution 5, a resolution calling for a convention of the States to amend the United States Constitution, recently cleared the Wyoming Senate. The resolution is ill-advised!
Opinion
When our Founding Fathers signed our Constitution in 1787, they were hopeful that it would be ratified by the required nine of 13 states. But there was resistance when state legislatures reviewed the document. Many believed the proposed Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect individual rights.
James Madison was selected to draft amendments to address the concerns of the states. His original list of nearly 20 amendments was eventually reduced to 10, which is the Bill of Rights we know today.
Intense discussion ensued about how to incorporate the 10 amendments into the Constitution. Should a convention be reconvened to insert the amendments into the appropriate sections of the document? Many argued that would open a can of worms, fearing it would be impossible to limit the discussion to the proposed amendments. Delegates to the 1787 convention had toiled for months to create the Constitution, and many were afraid their efforts would be undone. The idea of another convention was soundly rejected. A decision was made to add the amendments to the original document as an appendix. It was a good decision.
The Constitution allows for amendments in two ways: A convention of the states can be called if two-thirds of the states request it. That has never happened, but 20 of the 34 required states are now calling for one. In another eight states, at least one chamber of the legislature has passed a resolution calling for such a convention Individual amendments could also be adopted with a two-thirds majority vote from both houses of Congress.. The proposed amendment must subsequently be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This is the method used to pass all amendments to date.
Original fears of a constitutional convention opening a can of worms are still valid today. Proponents of another convention contend those fears are unfounded because the convention could be restricted to certain topics, which is what SJ5 calls for. But many legal experts disagree. In 1988, then-Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger warned: “There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure the Convention would obey.” Burger’s concerns appear to be validated by SJ5, Section 2 (iii), which specifically limits the power of Congress “Congress does not have the power or authority to determine any rules for the governing of an amendment convention of the several states called pursuant to article V of the United States constitution.”
A constitutional convention would shake the very foundation of our democracy, especially during this time of extreme divisiveness. While conservative states would likely use a convention to try to limit federal authority, liberal states might use it to eliminate the Second Amendment and the Electoral College. It is possible — even likely — that the ensuing disagreements could result in civil unrest.
A convention of the states should be avoided at all costs! If Wyoming legislators would like to change the Constitution, they should propose specific amendments, as has been the tradition for nearly 240 years.
Last year, a similar resolution passed 22-7 in third reading in the Wyoming Senate, but it was defeated 25-32 in the Committee of the Whole in the House of Representatives. Let’s hope this bad idea doesn’t get that far again.
Balanced Budget Amendments have been introduced in Congress almost ever session since the 1930s.
Dozens upon dozens of times.
In just one Congress — the 103rd — at least 26 separate balanced budget amendment resolutions were filed.
Since 1999, more than one hundred balanced budget amendment proposals have been introduced.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has held at least 23 days of hearings on the issue.
Nine separate balanced budget amendment resolutions were formally reported out of committee between the 97th and 105th Congresses.
They’ve had floor debates.
They’ve had roll calls
And still — nothing.
They failed under divided government.
They failed under Republican majorities.
They failed under Democratic majorities.
They failed in economic crisis.
They failed in record deficits.
They failed in record debt.
Over twelve thousand constitutional amendments of every kind have been introduced in Congress — and Congress has sent only 33 back to the states for ratification.
Why would Congress now suddenly restrain its own borrowing power?
Why would it voluntarily surrender its own spending authority?
Article V was written precisely because Congress cannot be trusted to limit itself.
The Constitutional remedy is not to “Ask Congress.”
It says the states may apply — and Congress shall call.
Petitioning Congress is not strategy.
It is SURRENDER of the very authority the STATES were given by the constitution .
Anything else is JUST symbolic theater.
This article defeats its own argument.
It claims an Article V convention cannot be limited, would likely produce radical changes, and could cause civil unrest. Yet it also acknowledges that under Article V of the United States Constitution, no proposal becomes law unless ratified by three-fourths of the states — 38 in total.
The supermajority requirement is the ultimate constitutional safeguard.
Any “extreme” proposal — such as eliminating the Second Amendment or abolishing the Electoral College — would certainly fail to secure approval from 38 states.
The article never reconciles this contradiction. If ratification requires overwhelming national consensus, then fears of runaway constitutional transformation are greatly overstated, or patently wrong.
By ignoring the force of the 38-state threshold, the argument defeats itself.
The convention clause of Article V is the spirit of the Declaration of Independence written into our high law. Of all the rights contained therein the right to formally discuss our government is what makes us who we are. Instead of resorting to the 2nd Amendment, we simply formally build consensus and propose ideas politicians could but won’t. To persist in falsehoods and outright lies in order to dissuade citizens from the common sense and objective solution to our predicament is to turn coat on the people and every element of our nation. Check FOAVC for facts.
To those trying to differentiate a constitutional convention from a convention of the states, your argument is not convincing. We are talking about fiddling with the DNA of government. The exact wording of the proposed constitutional amendments should be in the joint resolution. It is not. Keep in mind, our current constitution only came about because the founders were supposed to tweak the Articles of Confederation. The fact we we had James Madison present is nothing short of a miracle. I don’t see his like amongst our current ilk of officeholders.
In today’s dependent/entitled/broken American culture-society, any changes to the Constitution would almost certainly remove protections the original enshrined.
Obviously The Wyoming Legislature can not change the United States Constitution on its own.However a two-third majority of States can call for a “Convention of States” seeking ratification of an agreed upon proposal.Once the convention has been called the States are bound to the proposal.No addition to the proposal is allowed.If three-quarters of the States called to convention agree on the proposal it is ratified.The notion that an out of control convention could occur is hogwash.It is very important to note that this is not a Constitutional Convention.It is a Convention of States, called upon by the States, to debate an agreed upon proposal for ratification.Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government, impose fiscal restraints(balanced budget), and require term limits for federal officials.Madison was adamant that the States may need an avenue to reign in an out of control federal government.Thank god he had that vision.We the People of the United States of America need to gain control of our Federal Government.A Convention of States provides that avenue.It is not a “bad idea” it is Genius!
SJ 5 is not about a constitutional convention but rather an Article V convention of states, enthusiasm for which is definitely gaining favor among more conservative states. While generally opposing the whole idea, Mr. DeGroot’s preference would be for Congress to control the convention rules. Since part of SJ 5’s stated purpose is to rein in Congress, it would be counter-productive and violate the intent of the convention to allow Congress such influence. Supporters of a COS seriously mean to by-pass Congress in order to restore to the individual states their rightful authority when Congress will not do its duty. Can we seriously believe that 34 states would propose, and 38 states ratify, anything that would be harmful to the nation?
A bad idea, yes. Also, foolish and delusional. A convention of the states will make up its own rules, despite noble effort to put conditions and restrictions in this bill. Wyoming objectives and insistence on one-state-one-vote is aspirational, at best. We won’t be dictating anything to the assembly, and the whole Constitution will be up for grabs (Earl DeGroot’s “can of worms.”)
The League of Women Voters wants safeguards, before we head into a convention that could affect our basic principles of government and individual rights:
• The convention must be transparent, conducted in public.
• Representation must be based on population (not one per stat), and delegates should be elected, rather than appointed
• Voting must be by delegate, not by state.
• The convention must be limited to a specific topic.
Well, that’s all pretty unlikely and completely absent from SJR5. If we want to amend the constitution to require a balanced budget or restrict federal overreach, then let’s do it the way we’ve done it since the convention in 1787: Congress drafts an amendment, and then the Wyoming Legislature is one of 3/4 of the state legislatures to amend our U.S. Constitution. Let’s go!
Your concerns are invalid. To begin with, a Constitutional Convention and a Convention of States are two completely different things. What is being called for is a Convention of States. Every state has to pass an identical resolution. If only one word is different, it doesn’t count. If the COS is convened, the only topics that can be discussed are those agreed upon. To change the topics would require another voted of the state legislatures. How far do you think that’s going to go. Even if amendment(s) are proposed (no guarantee) they still have to be ratified by three fourths of the states or 39 states. Your article is incorrect and misleading. The public needs the truth about the COS.
Wyoming as a state Legislature cannot propose ammendments to the US Constitution unless they use the second clause of Article V in the Constitution. That process is exactly what COS Action is trying to do with getting 34 state legislatures to get the application approved. 20 states are already on board, and I feel it is a shame that a conservative state like Wyoming has not passed this.
The Founders designed Article V for states to restrain federal overreach peacefully and constitutionally—countering decades of Supreme Court decisions that have effectively amended the Constitution.
Critics like Chief Justice Burger offered no evidence from reviewing Article V’s merits; his concerns arose amid efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, a decision he supported and was trying to protect.
Historical record shows conventions stay limited: Over 40 state-called conventions in U.S. history followed their initiating resolutions exactly, with no “runaway” precedents. Courts have ruled the process, once started, cannot be altered midstream.
For the Convention of States (via SJ5-type resolutions), 20 of the required 34 states have already passed identical applications calling for amendments on term limits for federal officials, fiscal restraints, and reducing federal power/jurisdiction. Only proposals within these limits are germane.
Congress won’t self-limit its power, so without an Article V convention, failed approaches will continue. This remains the strongest constitutional path forward. Wyoming, if serious about federalism and the founders intent of states determining their own future, needs to support SJ5.