Opinion: Petition to the Florida State Congress to rescind the current active Article V Constitutional Convention Application

May 01, 2025

by Clifford M. Reid Jr.

I submitted the following document to Senator Jay Trumbull and Representative Griff Griffiths on March 10th.

It reads as follows:

This submission respectfully petitions the Florida State Legislature to rescind the active Article V Constitutional Convention Application passed on April 21, 2014, for the following reasons:

The United States Constitution is not currently being enforced. How can we determine its effectiveness if it is not upheld? Furthermore, changing the Constitution is never wise and can lead to unintended, possibly dangerous, consequences. If the Constitution were properly enforced, the stated reasons for calling an Article V Convention would not exist.

Our God-given rights and freedoms would be put at risk. Socialist, tyrannical policies could easily replace the liberties we cherish.

There is an organization, the Convention of States (COS), actively lobbying across the country to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. COS uses flowery rhetoric and carefully crafted talking points to persuade listeners, backed by significant financial resources. For example, one of their handouts claims:

“Article V gives state legislators authority to convene to propose constitutional amendments that impose additional limits on federal power. By using this tool, which until now has been neglected by the states, we can shift power away from special interests in Washington and back to the people.”

However, Article V of the Constitution clearly outlines two paths for proposing amendments:

“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 plainly stated, amendments can be proposed either by Congress or through a convention, but both options carry equal legal weight. Importantly, Article V has already been used 17 times since ratification; it is neither neglected nor unused. Amending the Constitution via Congress — rather than a convention — is far safer and more cost-effective.

COS claims, “It’s time to dust off this constitutional tool and put it to work to restore federalism.” But federalism has not disappeared. What has changed is the refusal of our Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to enforce the Constitution as written.

Another claim from COS reads:

“Federalism was the ingenious plan of America’s Founders to allow a sprawling, diverse population to remain varied and distinct for most purposes, united under a handful of shared transcendent values.”

While that may sound appealing, it is rhetorical fluff. It paints a pretty picture of the freedom we already possess if the Constitution is properly enforced. But it’s unnecessary window dressing. Article V has always been accessible and in use.

For clarity, here’s a more formal definition from Merriam-Webster:

“Federalism is a system of government where power is divided between a central authority and smaller political units, such as states, allowing for shared authority and responsibilities...”

I prefer clear, formal definitions over emotional appeals. Give me substance, not sentimentality.

COS wants the states to convene to:

Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government.

Limit federal power and jurisdiction.

Set term limits for federal officials and bureaucrats.

However, the Constitution already imposes these limits:

Fiscal Restraints:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Enforce this clause, and fiscal restraint is automatic. No convention needed.

Limiting Federal Power:
Article I enumerates Congressional powers. If it’s not listed, Congress lacks the authority. Former Congressman Pete Stark once famously said, “Congress can do pretty much anything it wants.” Mr. Stark was, bluntly, constitutionally illiterate.

Term Limits:
Rather than opening a convention, we could simply rescind the 17th Amendment, returning power to the state legislatures and restoring a crucial check on federal overreach.

Each of COS’s stated goals could be achieved right now if the Constitution were enforced.

This leads to the critical question: Why is COS so determined to push for a Constitutional Convention? They present themselves as patriotic, but their claims are misleading at best. What is their real agenda? Why spend millions to promote something unnecessary?

Meanwhile, Governor Gavin Newsom of California has already proposed a sweeping 28th Amendment aimed at eliminating gun rights. What other radical proposals could emerge from an Article V Convention?

Most crucially, COS downplays the inherent danger: an Article V Convention opens the door to rewriting the Constitution itself. The last time a convention was held, the Articles of Confederation were discarded and replaced entirely. That precedent cannot be ignored.

Is it worth risking our rights, freedoms, and the integrity of our Constitution when Congress already has the power to pass amendments without such a risk?

----

The opinions expressed in the Bay County Coastal are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Bay County Coastal, its owners, or its contractors. We strive to provide a platform for diverse perspectives and encourage respectful and thoughtful discourse among our readers.