One objection I hear from a lot of concerned citizens is that a Convention of States won’t make any difference. Congress already ignores the Constitution, they say, so amending the Constitution through a Convention of States won’t change a thing. 

But a Convention of State will be effective, and here’s why: Congress doesn’t yet openly reject our Constitution. In fact, that would be ridiculous because the Constitution itself is the only source of Congress’s power and its only claim to legitimacy. Instead, Congress twists the Constitution’s language to justify absurd extensions of power, while keeping up at least the façade of acting within its constitutional constraints (aided in no small part by the Supreme Court). The problem isn’t so much that Congress ignores the Constitution; the problem is that it stretches the Constitution’s text to claim the maximum possible power for itself. 

This hardly would have been surprising to the Founders. As good students of human nature, they expected the federal government to assert as much power as it could, and they planned for that occurrence by placing numerous checks and balances in the Constitution, the most powerful of which is a Convention of States. Indeed, that’s exactly why George Mason sought to include a Convention of States in the Constitution: to counter the inevitable accumulation of federal power.

Amendments can reign in the federal government because the Constitution itself is the source of all the federal government’s power. A Convention of States can correct Congress’s twisted interpretation of the Constitution, by forcing it to operate within meaningful limits, and by returning to the people and the states the power which is rightfully theirs. 

About The Author

Jordan Sillars