Forcing Congress’s Hand
At the July 4 Tea Party in Washington, MO, I mentioned a worthy Constitutional goal: repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The 16th permitted the income tax, or non-proportional taxation. The 17th provided for the popular election of US Senators. I also recommended a strategy. Clumsily, so I’ve been told. So clumsily, in fact, no one thought it a strategy, but a tactic. I’d like to clarify the confusion I started.
Petitioning Congress to Force Its Hand
First, I did not call for a Constitutional Convention. Nor do I desire such a thing. What I said was Missouri should petition Congress for a Constitutional Convention. The idea is not mine, but Dr. Randy Barnett’s. The strategy is to force Congress to propose specific Amendments before two-thirds of the states submit their application. This strategy is how we got the 17th Amendment in the first place, according to Dr. Barnett:
State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds. It was the looming threat of state petitions calling for a convention to provide for the direct election of U.S. senators that induced a reluctant Congress to propose the 17th Amendment, which did just that.
Read the Article V and Relax
Second, I oppose a Constitutional Convention (and doubt we could get two-thirds of the states to petition), some of hysteria over the idea is misguided. For example, I’ve heard speculation that the convention could abolish the ratification requirements. Nonsense. Utter nonsense dispelled by the Constitution itself.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, 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, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
While the convention could write an Amendment abolishing the ratification by states, the states would have to ratify that Amendment. In fact, three-fourths of the states must ratify anything that comes out of the Convention, either by state legislature or by state convention. The national convention could propose an Amendment to drop babies from helicopters at noon annually on July 4 in every city with a population greater than 100,000, too, but unless three-fourths of the states ratify it, our babies are safe.
Be Bold
After 100 of statist encroachment into the powers reserved to the states or to the people, timid half-measures like strongly worded resolutions in state legislatures will do nothing but irritate this beast of government. If we hope to stop and reverse America’s descent into socialism (or national socialism), then we must take bold steps, which are often dangerous. Petitioning for a convention is bold. Resolutions of states’ rights are tantrums.


This author sadly and obviously does not know what he is talking about. A simple Google of Article V convention cold have saved him the embarrassment.
He states Randy Barnett came up with the idea of “forcing” the hand of Congress to propose amendments and that the author doubts two thirds of the states (34) would apply for a convention.
Wrong.
According to public record, all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention, well in excess of the 34 needed and obviously over two thirds of the states have applied for such a convention. The texts of the applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.
Therefore, as Mr. Barnett discovered which is why he has stopped urging his so-called strategy, there is no way to “force” Congress to call a convention based on the “threat” of applications as the two-thirds mark was reached long ago. Simply put, Congress must call a convention as specified by Article V and anyone discussing the subject, including the author of this article, should begin discussion from that point.
The fact is the states have already acted boldly as he states. But opponents to obeying the Constitution have everyone convinced a convention will write a new Constitution and doom life on earth as we know it. The author points out correctly this is incorrect. It is time to bring pressure on Congress and ask them by what right they claim to veto the Constitution. For more on this aspect see FAQ 9.1 on the FOAVC website.