Why Kansans Should Oppose An Article V Convention

I have a number of important reasons for opposing a Convention of the States, but there is one in particular that needs to be pointed out and that I’d like to focus on.

Kansas is one of the most conservative states in the nation.

This is an extremely important point to understand and to consider when discussing the potential for an Article V Convention.

What this means is that nearly every other delegation at a proposed convention would be less conservative, less liberty minded, and less principled than our Kansas delegation.

Should Kansans be excited about a convention run nearly entirely by less conservative states?

Even in Kansas, prior to last session, Constitutional Carry – that is, people being allowed to exercise their God-given, constitutionally protected rights without a permit – had not even been proposed or considered legislation.

I do not think it is wise to trust our Constitution to the numerous other states that allow for many more gun restrictions than Kansas does.

Some proponents will argue that the convention can be controlled and that it will be a “limited” convention specific to a given issue or issues.

But once convened, delegates have full authority, with enough votes, to change the rules, ignore the rules, and essentially do what they want.

This is not uncommon or unusual procedure for conventions or other parliamentary settings. That is, after all, why they are there – to oversee and change the rules.

Should we just expect that this common procedure not be used at this convention?

And let’s not forget about the shenanigans at the both the Republican and Democrat National Conventions in 2012 where rules were not just suspended or changed, but broken to push through an agenda.

Additionally, the Kansas resolution may use the word limited, but this is not as clear cut as it seems.

The Kansas resolution states that one of the topics or issues of the convention is to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”.

This opens up the entire Constitution for an unlimited number of changes so long as those changes “limit” the federal government. But the word limit does not necessarily mean that changes would only further restrict government power.

To limit something is to set its boundary. An amendment could very well “limit” the federal government’s power while still growing the power of the federal government when compared to current limits.

Proponents will also argue that any amendments will have to be ratified by the states and that this is a strong enough buffer to protect our Constitution.

This sounds like a fair argument, but there is a big problem.

Imagine for a moment what policy in this country would look like without twelve (12) of the most liberty minded states.

Now imagine what the country would look like if the Constitution were altered to reflect those policies or viewpoints. Is that a Constitution you are prepared to make possible?

You see, twelve (12) of the most conservative and liberty minded states can be left entirely out of the equation and still ratify an amendment that weakens the Constitution.

Kansas would be one of the states that gets left out.

Also worth noting is that the amendments proposed that are most dangerous to the foundation of our Constitution may not be the obvious ones.

A dangerous amendment will likely not be the proposed amendment that spells out trying to upend the Constitution or removing one of the Bill of Rights.

A truly dangerous amendment will be one that looks like a beautiful compromise. It will be an amendment that can pass ratification while leaving Kansas out of the equation.

How many states subject themselves to federal government control over their education and might allow for what is already current policy to be reflected in the Constitution?

How many states restrict gun rights, even just a little bit, that might allow for the Constitution to reflect those restrictions?

Pick an issue where you trust the least conservative, least liberty-minded states to change the Constitution and tell me you still want to call an Article V convention.

I would encourage those reading to think long and hard before trusting our Constitution to such dangerous conditions and I would encourage you to look towards grassroots activism and the 10th Amendment as solutions to federal overreach.

I would also highly encourage you to take a couple of minutes to contact your legislators right now and let them know how important it is for them to vote NO on any proposal calling for an Article V Convention or Convention of States.

You can find your Kansas legislators and their contact information at these links:
Kansas House
Kansas Senate