Co-founder of Convention of States Project comes to Kansas, provides testimonial in Senate Federal State Affairs Committee
Article/COS - 6 minute read
TOPEKA - The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee held a hearing on March 13, 2023, where they heard proponents and opponents testimonials on SCR 1607, which would make an application for a convention of states to propose amendments to limit the federal government.
A total of 16 proponents sent written-only testimony with co-founder of Convention of States Project Michael Farris being the sole proponent speaking. He provided his background including his profession in law as one of the only lawyers to litigate an Article V case for the Equal Rights Amendment before going into the history of Article V.
“Why we have Article V in the fashion that it is came from a motion that George Mason made in the final week of the constitutional convention in 1787,” Farris explained. “The proposal on the table at that point in time was all amendments had to be proposed by Congress, and all had to be ratified by the states.”
Farris paraphrased Mason who pointed out that someday the federal government would abuse its power and when that happens, Congress would be unwilling to limit its own power. Thus, the states needed a way to start the amendment process, and Mason’s idea was agreed to nem. con., meaning “without debate”.
“We’ve never used the power of the states to discipline the federal government in 200 plus years,” Farris said. “We got a mess on our hands as a consequence of that. State legislatures have the unique authority—the lawful authority—directly from Article V—you do not derive your authority to act on this from the Kansas Constitution or the Kansas laws. You derive it straight from Article V of the United States Constitution. And with that authority comes the moral responsibility I suggest to use it.”
He posed the question of whether the federal government is out of control, saying he believes it is, pointing out the debt specifically. He also explained the process of a convention of states with 34 states (two-thirds of all states) having to vote to approve a convention for a particular purpose. Hundreds of convention of states resolutions for different purposes have been passed by different states, but because they are not for the same purpose a convention has yet to be called. A total of 19 states have passed the resolution the committee was hearing on Monday. A convention must be called by Congress once there are 34 states that pass the resolution. At the convention, each state gets one vote with a simple majority (26 states) voting in favor to propose an amendment on one of three key issues including:
Impose fiscal restraint on the federal government
Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government
Term limits on Congress and federal officials
Once the amendment is proposed, it does not become an amendment to the U.S. constitution until three-fourths of the states (38 states) pass the amendment through their state legislature.
Farris then addressed the myth of the runaway convention of 1787—the convention that is known as a constitutional convention as it created the U.S. Constitution, and is different than a Convention of States which only seeks to create amendments to the constitution as allowed by Article V of the constitution, hence its other name, ‘Article V Convention’. Farris mentioned a peer reviewed article he wrote and had published in the Harvard Journal of Law, which explains why the constitutional convention of 1787 was not actually a “runaway convention” as so many opponents of Article V try to suggest.
“It’s impossible—impossible to pass something crazy,” Farris finished. “It’s really hard to pass something good through this process. To get 38 states is really hard unless it’s clean, pretty straight forward, it’s not going to get ratified. So, anybody who thinks we can lose the second amendment or the first amendment, or anything like that, is simply not looking at the way it works…. The idea that we can get something crazy through that process simply is unattainable. I would urge you to take your responsibility that the constitution gives to you and call a convention so that we can restrict the abuse of power by the federal government.”
A total of two opponents spoke, with one opponent providing written-only testimony. Starting the opponent testimony was Kansas Campaign for Liberty volunteer coordinator John Axtell, who had recently appeared speaking against HCR 5008 to pass an Article V Convention a couple weeks earlier. Axtell spoke on “data” from the 1787 constitutional convention and how the delegates were “exceeding their authority.”
“We don’t need to look back 230 to 240 years to the convention of 1787 to see the evidence that the constitutional convention process will not be controlled by the state legislature,” Axtell said in his testimony. “We see this unfolding right here, right now, and showing very clearly that a convention, quote, ‘cannot be constrained by the people of Kansas.’ Proponents have set the stage to sue the state of Kansas or the constitution in federal court in order to make it easier to pass this resolution.”
It’s important to note that a constitutional convention is not the same thing as a Convention of States and they have different processes.
What Axtell is referring to when he speaks on the resolution being “made easier to pass” is the ‘Roe Rule’ which was a federally unconstitutional amendment to the Kansas constitution passed in 1974 to make it more difficult to call a Convention of States. This year, the Kansas Rules Committee agreed to axe the ‘Roe Rule,’ righting the wrong of the tyrannical 1974 Kansas legislature decision.
The other opponent who spoke was Blake Branson.
“It would be so nice to have an easy solution to solve all our problems,” Branson said. “It would be much easier to stand beside all of my proponent friends, both inside and outside the legislature. But the constitution is too important and the problems with this resolution are too numerous for me to do so. An Article V Convention in today’s climate would end in either disaster or a giant waste of time.”
Branson continued, speaking on how politicians create “large and powerful organizations” that would make term limits mute.
“If we don’t learn how to hold politicians accountable, what will stop politicians from ignoring the new words we put in the constitution the same way they ignore them now,” Branson said.
Branson also said the bill is too broad in its wording and dangerous amendments proposed won’t be obvious. He also pointed to the failure of states to protect their citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic for why we cannot trust states to create new amendments. He finished by saying we won’t know who the delegates will be and therefore cannot trust their decisions at the convention.
The committee asked questions to both Axtell and Farris, with Farris debunking points made by both opponents.
To watch the full hearing, click here.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe. You can also help independent journalism in Kansas by buying me a coffee at buymeacoffee.com/kscon.