In a speech given to the 168 delegates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 6, 1788, James Madison stated, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Madison’s words stress that even democratic regimes are susceptible to tyrannizing the citizenry.
233 years later, Americans have become victims to the soft despotism of the Federal Government due to its ever-increasing size and power, and rejection of our nation’s fundamental principles. Calls for a Convention of States have become a rallying cry for those who wish to restore our nation’s institutions, however, opposition has arisen over the possibility of a rogue or “runaway” convention. While some have taken the opposition’s fear as being a legitimate concern, the runaway myth fails on account of misconceived precedent and technicality.
Before I proceed to debunk the Runaway myth, it is vital to understand what a Convention of States is and why its appeal continues to persist today. A Convention of States is one of the two methods used to add amendments to the Constitution, as outlined in Article 5, in which the states propose, debate, and vote on amendments that are then subject to the ratification process. The runaway myth asserts that since a Convention of States has never happened, the Convention could go in a way its supporters do not expect.
Instead of rolling back the federal government to a more constitutionally appropriate level as the Convention’s supporters want, the delegates could become rogue and use the Convention’s power to pass amendments that could take away our constitutional and natural rights. Groups like the John Birch Society have called the Convention of States a new “Constitutional Convention”, fearing that it would mean that the Constitution would be fully replaced by a tyrannical system. This fear has been promulgated through various conservative circles along with the rest of society, which has led many to form a resistance to this method of amending the Constitution. While this fear seems reasonable to justify opposition, it is based on unfounded evidence that originated with James Madison.
The initial part of the runaway myth is expressed by James Madison in Federalist 40, which states that the convention was to “be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The problem with this phrase is that Madison is referring to the calls by the Anti-Federalists to reject the Constitution, which Madison counters this technicality by precedent. Madison highlights that the Articles of Confederation was not adopted by a convention with restrictions and procedures but by the people. He reminds them that the proposed Constitution on the other hand was drafted in a procedural setting, with limitations and restrictions on its scope. Thus, Madison’s words do not grant legitimacy to the runaway myth, rather its use as evidence for the runaway myth is based on misinterpretation and unfounded precedence.
Another part of the runaway myth is that there is no official procedure, however this fear is unfounded as well. Former U.S Representative Tom Coburn and Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States stated when asked about the possibility of a runaway convention that there are multiple checks and balances to the Convention process, including the rules of the convention, lawyers, the state legislatures, and the ratification process. It would be virtually impossible to pass any amendment without facing the numerous roadblocks that are already established to prevent despotic amendments from becoming part of the constitution.
As the testimony of Madison and the procedural technicalities refute the runaway myth narrative, the need for a Convention of States is at an all-time high. The time to restore our republic is now, and Convention of States is the cure to our nation’s illness. The American people should not forsake future generations to the claws of the federal government’s soft despotism, for a nation that can’t preserve its values, is a nation that will not persevere for long.
The views and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the values and beliefs of Cogitare Magazine, nor of Grove City College.
