No Convention of States North Carolina

Our mission

Our purpose is to inform the people of North Carolina about the dangers of an Article V convention of States and to enable the people to communicate directly with their legislators on this critical issue.

About us

We oppose any North Carolina application for an Article V Convention of States. We are a grassroots committee of individual North Carolina citizens, dedicated to preserving the U.S. Constitution. In addition to opposing Article V Convention of States, NoCOS-NC opposes all North Carolina applications for any proposed form of Article V convention. We are non-partisan. We are not connected to other organizations. We are willing to work side-by-side with other organizations of like mind.

Amending the Constitution under Article V

The Founding Fathers established two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Method 1: The single amendment method

This is known as the single amendment method. It states that whenever two-thirds of both houses of Congress deem it necessary, Congress must propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Three-fourths of the states (38) are needed for ratification of the amendment. This is the only method that has been used since the founding of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. All 27 amendments we have now started this way.

Method 2: State legislatures apply to Congress to call a convention

If two-thirds of the state legislatures (34) apply to (request or ask) Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution, Congress must call a convention. This method has never been used because convening an Article V convention is very risky. It could result in a complete rewrite of the unique and brilliant Constitution that we have now – a document that gives Americans more liberty and freedom of opportunity than any nation on earth. James Madison, who was often called the Father of the Constitution, wrote to G.L. Turberville (November 2, 1888): “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second.”

What is in Article V?

“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 fourth 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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Why oppose “Convention of States Project”?

Convention of States Project (COSP), is a powerful national lobby. It is pressuring North Carolina Legislators to apply to Congress to call a “Convention of States”. Their goal seems legimate on the surface: to convene an Article V Convention of States in order to save America from the overreach of the federal government. Closer inspection shows serious flaws.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that, if two-thirds of the states (34) pass applications (resolutions) asking Congress to call an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to Constitution, then Congress must call a convention. A prerequisite for Congress to call a convention is that the convention must be a legitimate Article V convention.

The “Convention of States Project” expects a Convention of States to work like this:

Once Congress calls the Convention of States, Congress has no say in the convention. It is completely in the hands of the more trustworthy and principled state legislatures, which means it is much closer to the hands of the people.
Each of the 50 state legislatures will send one state legislator as a delegate to represent that state’s interests at the convention.
A pre-written convention agenda (devised by Convention of States Project) will keep the convention under control. This agenda is incorporated into a model resolution for all state legislatures. It limits the convention to the consideration of 3 subjects or topics dealing with the overreach of the federal government.
The state-appointed convention delegate will be accountable to a state law. The delegate will be removed from the convention, penalized by fine or possibly imprisoned, if he or she does not follow the state legislature’s instructions. This would include voting on amendments and interacting with other delegates. This is called a “faithful delegate” law.
Each state gets one vote on every amendment proposed at the convention and a majority of the delegates (at least 26) must vote in the affirmative to pass it on for ratification by the states. This ensures that common sense will prevail and no “crazy” amendments will make it out of the convention.

Why it won’t work:

Constitutionally, the only power the States have under Article V is to ask Congress to call a convention. Once that’s done, it’s out of the hands of the States. So, the convention cannot be a “convention of states” – it’s a federal convention, called by Congress, to perform a federal function. And, the delegates to the convention cannot be limited to a category of elected officials, such as state legislators. The delegates can be anyone, who as individual citizens can competently represent the SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE of their state, not the rights of the state legislatures. The delegates to the convention will have the autonomy to conduct the convention according to rules that are decided upon after the convention convenes and the method of voting for proposed amendments has yet to be decided.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that a Convention of States is not a legitimate Article V convention. And ironically, many of Convention of States Project’s proposed procedures for the delegates’ convention agenda, as well as the proposed amendments for state ratification, actually enable the expansion of the federal government instead of reining it in.
For these reasons, No Convention of States North Carolina (NoCOS-NC) was founded to stop a Convention of States from happening.

Is a “Convention of States” a Constitutional Convention?

Rob Natelson, a law professor and a Convention of States supporter, said on September 16, 2010 that he would stop calling an Article V convention for proposing amendments a “constitutional convention”. He would call it a “convention of states” instead. The new label implies that a “convention of states,” would be controlled by the states. It wouldn’t be.
In our nation’s history, there has never been any such thing. The term “convention of the states” was used in 1787, but it did not have the same meaning as Natelson’s “convention of states”. Most importantly, the Convention was neither conducted by, nor controlled by, the states. That is why the Founding Fathers did not write the term “convention of states” into Article V. The Founding Fathers stated that the convention was a “convention for proposing amendments”.
Why did they change the name to “convention of states”?
Convention of States lobbyists try to soothe legislator fears by reassuring them that, unlike a constitutional convention, a Convention of States can be controlled by the states—that legislators should not worry about asking Congress to call one.
To persuade legislators to accept Rob Natelson’s new name for an Article V convention, lobbyists for Convention of States Project try to make a distinction between a Convention of States and a “constitutional convention” (“Con-Con”). They do this to allay the concern of legislators that, if convened, a constitutional convention could get out of control and become a “runaway” convention.
An out-of-control convention could result in unintended and tragic consequences for the U.S. Constitution and for the liberties of all Americans. Convention of States lobbyists try to reassure legislators that, unlike a constitutional convention, a Convention of States can be controlled by the states, that the legislators should not be concerned about asking Congress to call one. This is false.
Do not believe the Convention of States double-talk. Only ONE kind of convention is authorized in Article V, not two! The Founding Fathers understood and confirmed in their writings that the Article V phrase “convention for proposing amendments” refers to one kind of convention and one kind only.
The Founders regarded an Article V convention as a “federal” or “general” convention. Americans of today traditionally refer to an Article V convention as a “constitutional convention”. Black’s Law Dictionary, the definitive source for lawyers, confirms that a Constitutional Convention is an Article V convention.
But, whether one uses “federal convention” or “constitutional convention” for an Article V convention, the meaning is the same. Both terms refer to the only convention authorized in Article V. There is no authority in Article V for another sort of convention.
The “convention of states,” newly named and devised in 2010, requires a very different convention method than the Founders established, and is not authorized by the Constitution.

The lobby to change the Constitution

Convention of States Project and its allies have carefully considered how they might circumvent the one-convention limitation in Article V. Why?
Every twenty years or so, going back to the early 1900s, well-funded special interest organizations or lobbyists show up at state legislatures with a new plan to convene a very risky Article V convention. They portray it as a spontaneous grassroots movement of the people.
More often than not, it turns out that “the people” have no knowledge of the idea. The lobbyists are funded by wealthy and powerful donor elites, such as the Rockefellers, Fords, Kochs, and billionaire globalist George Soros, who initiate the movement behind the scenes. They want to change the Constitution to suit their personal ideological power agendas.
Coinciding with a twenty-year pattern dating back to 1910, supporters and lobbyists for a Convention of States started showing up in 2010.
Founded and spearheaded by “conservatives” Mark Meckler and Dr. Michael Farris, Convention of States Project, currently lobbies the state legislatures promoting their model application for a state resolution to ask Congress to call a Convention of States. The ready-made application for state legislatures was quickly backed by American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States. In order to raise awareness for the Convention of States, ALEC immediately published the Article V Handbook by Professor Rob Natelson, who gave the Convention of States its name in 2010.
Citing questionable and revisionist historical accounts that are either taken out of context or cannot be documented, Convention of States Project, ALEC, and other supporters tell state legislators that the Founding Fathers foresaw the day when the federal government would inevitably expand its power far beyond its bounds. They say the Founders provided Article V as the means for future Americans to rein in the federal government and save America.
This is the foremost talking point of Convention of States supporters, but it is incorrect and misleading. Article V was not instituted by the Founders to rein in the power of the federal government. The entire Constitution is the means of reining in the federal government. The Founders have stated that the purpose of Article V is for making in the Constitution “useful alterations” (James Madison), such as the correction of administrative errors (amendments) which the Founders thought would emerge after its ratification. Article V was designed only to address “discovered faults” or “errors” in the Constitution.

Their solution is a problem

Convention of State Project’s advertising slogan is “a solution as big as the problem”. They emphasize that no other action but convening a Convention of States can fix the problem of an abusive federal government.
But, their proposed solution is not a real solution. There is no authority for a “Convention of States” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The term, “Convention of States” is not found in Article V. And, if a “convention for proposing amendments” were called under Article V, the states would not control it.
Therefore, No Convention of States North Carolina was formed to oppose the passage of a Convention of States application in the North Carolina General Assembly and to say NO to Convention of States Project’s solution, which poses the real problem! Our motto is “Their solution is the problem”!

Why is it a problem?

The United States Constitution is not defective. It does not need to be amended.
If elected officials won’t obey the Constitution now, why would they obey an amended one?
State legislators are not necessarily the best delegates. The state legislatures have contributed greatly to the expansion of the federal government by crossing constitutional lines. For decades, they have accepted federal grants. In exchange for the money, they bowed to the demands of the federal government to ignore basic principles embedded in our Federal and State Constitutions. Even if a Convention of States were a legitimate Article V convention (and it is not), state legislators are not necessarily the best delegates to send.
There is no way to control or limit the scope of a legitimate Article V convention. Supporters of a Convention of States insist that the delegates to the convention will be forced to stick to the pre-planned rules and agenda and not go outside of its bounds. Despite what supporters say, there is no way to control or limit the scope of the Article V convention.
A convention is a SOVEREIGN ASSEMBLY of the people. The Legislature has no power to limit or control a power higher than itself. The convention has government-making authority that transcends law-making authority, regardless of whether the laws are made by the state legislatures or by Congress. And this would hold true, even if, in the worst-case scenario, misguided state legislatures and an unwise Congress, enabled by an uninformed citizenry, erroneously convened an illegitimate Convention of States.
Delegates to a convention can be any citizen selected to represent the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. The delegates are not legally accountable to their state legislatures or Congress. Convention of States Project ignores this fact and has devised a process, whereby only state legislators would be selected to be delegates to a Convention of States and the delegate legislator for each state would be legally accountable by state law for votes and actions at the convention. As a result, some state legislators have introduced or have supported passing a “faithful delegate” law for their own state. This law defines restrictions that would hold the state legislator, as a delegate for that state, legally accountable if he or she does not follow the state legislature’s specific convention instructions. Penalties could be removal from the convention, fines, or possible imprisonment. This is illegal and unconstitutional. All delegates who attend an Article V have the authority under Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence to “alter or abolish their form of government.” They are exempt from legal accountability to their state legislature because they are representing the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, NOT their state legislature.
A convention has the power to amend the constitution, abolish it, or even to create a completely new constitution. A new convention poses a danger because it would possess the same power that gave us our wonderful Constitution in the first place. Delegates who attend an Article V convention have the authority under paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence to “alter or abolish their form of government” and replace it with a new form of government. Therefore delegates to an Article V convention could institute dangerous new amendments that would weaken the Constitution and erase the liberties of U.S. citizens. Worse still, the delegates could create a completely new Constitution that would bear no resemblance to our current Constitution.
Dangerous new constitutions have been proposed to replace our current constitution. For example, 50 years ago, the Ford Foundation produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. As the title indicates, this proposed substitution for the U.S. Constitution would have changed the 50 states we have now to 10 states or 10 regions. This is just one of many bad Newstates or America proposals.  Another proposed Constitution to replace the U.S. Constitution is The New Socialist Republic of North America. And currently, billionaire globalist George Soros, who wants to curtail American sovereignty, is pushing a Constitution 2020. 
There is no safety in the ratification process. A convention can change the ratification process just as easily as any other part of it (and in 1787 it did.) The Convention of States lobbyists in North Carolina and nationally assert that it would be an “incredibly remote possibility” to have an out-of-control or “runaway” convention, because 38 states would not be foolish enough to ratify any “crazy” amendments. This talking point of Convention of States Project and other supporters is very misleading and dangerous. It does not address the very real possibility that the current method of state ratification for Article V could be thrown out and replaced with a very different ratification method. Convention of States lobbyists and supporters, when confronted about this inconvenient truth, are unable to state that there is absolutely no possibility of an out-of-control or “runaway” convention. They can only say that it is an “incredibly remote possibility”. Keep in mind that a Convention of States should never be convened in the first place because it isn’t a legitimate Article V convention and was not authorized by our Founders.
In today’s politically correct climate we do not see Convention delegates who could be trusted with sovereign power. It’s easy to imagine a modern Convention making corrupt, immoral and power-consolidating changes that would weaken or destroy the protections of our Constitution. Convention of States Project has stated that they welcome all ideologies to the table at a Convention of States, expecting a good result. This is a huge risk. The Founding Fathers, as delegates to the convention of 1787, passionately expressed their differences about procedures and how to balance the power of the states with the power of the new federal government. But, they were like-minded in their basic worldview of liberty and the nature of mankind and society. In 1787, the delegates to the convention in Philadelphia represented the sovereign rights of the people. They were learned, brilliant, patriot statesmen who spoke multiple languages and had studied every form of government, philosophy, and religion in world history. Some had investigated and experimented with the sciences. Most importantly, they knew that sound moral principles were the foundation of a successful and harmonious nation. Where would we find that quality of delegate today?
Certain elements of the extreme Left are also want to convene a Convention of States to push their own pet amendments. Examples are the National Popular Vote to destroy the Electoral College, an amendment to overturn Citizens United campaign finance; and the intent to do away with or rewrite the Second Amendment. Ultra-left proponents of a Convention of States, such as Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig, have stated that they are not concerned if, during a Convention of States, a runaway convention takes place and a “rewrite” of the Constitution happens.
At this divisive and polarizing time for our nation, it is insanity to subject our Constitution to changes at a convention while the rest of the world looks on. In 1991, when a similar attempt to convene a convention was in play, respected law Professor Christopher Brown (Univ. of Maryland) stated: “[A convention] would create a major distraction to ordinary concerns, imposing a disabling effect on this country’s domestic and foreign policies.” The last thing we need is the “major distraction” and the “disabling effect” of a constitutional convention – or of an illegitimate Article V convention, such as a Convention of States. With competing voices from the Left and the Right at the table, what concessions would have to be made? What would be the compromises?

Convention Of States Project’s Model Resolution

Convention of States Project model application (state resolution) for a Convention of States proposes a convention agenda limited to 3 broad subjects or topics to be addressed at a Convention of States. This is unconstitutional. A convention agenda cannot be limited to proposals for a single or certain amendments and it most certainly cannot be limited by 3 broad subjects that are worded in such a way that ANYONE could propose ANYTHING.
An Article V convention is for proposing specific amendments to the Constitution, NOT for addressing the question of government power through broad and vague subjects or topics.
In addition, these proposed topics, rather than improving the Constitution and reining in the federal government, would more likely weaken the Constitution and make current problems much worse!
The Founders brilliantly created the entire Constitution for this purpose and it does not need to be changed, just obeyed.

How Convention of States proposes to “limit” the federal government

Fiscal restraints The proposed Convention of States supports a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government. But, all versions of the BBA would replace the enumerated powers of the federal government with more general and unlimited powers. This would enable the federal government to spend money on whatever the federal government wanted as long as federal government did not exceed the spending limits of the BBA.
Power and jurisdiction limitations The term “limit” does not necessarily mean to reduce or make smaller. A limit is a boundary, which could be bigger or smaller than the current boundary. Because of the above wording, Constitutional lawyer Dr. Edwin Viera declared that “The convention is wide open. That specific clause (“limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”) is so broad (that) any attorney could fit virtually any amendment within it. Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government is what the Constitution already does. So, here we are proposing to create new limits. Will those new limits be higher or lower than the present ones?”
Term limits The Founders rejected term limits for Congress after experiencing the bad effects of term limits during the Articles of Confederation. There was less accountability since elected officials were “lame ducks” during their last term. Term limits removed the incentive for good behavior. The same holds true today. Term limits remove good officials who have gained in experience and should be allowed to serve longer. Term Limits deprive Americans of the ability to re-elect a quality candidate. Even with term limits, uninformed voters can replace bad elected officials with others of the same poor quality. A shrinking pool of quality and eligible candidates allows lobbyists more control due to the loss of experienced legislators. The possibilities for corruption are not limited by term limits

Better solutions from NO CONVENTION OF STATES NORTH CAROLINA

Hold to the principles of the U.S. Constitution This is not a Left-Right issue. It is an American issue. For the most part, the movement for a Convention of the states is driven by conservatives on the Right whose efforts and activities are promoted by a few popular conservative media personalities who have chosen to partner up with Convention of States Project. But, be aware that a small number of individuals and organizations on the extreme Left are also working in tandem with Convention of States Project to achieve a Convention of States for their own purposes. Whether you are with the Right or the Left, if you publicly oppose the Convention of States, Convention of States Project and their media supporters will describe you as being influenced and manipulated unknowingly by the ideology you normally oppose – whether it is the Left or the Right.  DON’T BE FOOLED! Hold to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the true history of our nation. Don’t be intimidated by false accusations that you are fearful or tricked by the other side into opposing a Convention of States. The fact is that the Article V convention movement is driven in the background by powerful wealthy elites (from the Right and the Left) who want to change the Constitution beyond recognition. They will use either of both ideologies to achieve their goals.
Know the U.S. Constitution Hold elected officials accountable under Article VI of the Constitution to uphold their oath to support the Constitution. They should change bad behaviors, not the Constitution. Our Constitution is unique in all history and should not be tampered with.
Contact your representatives Write or call your North Carolina House Representative and Senator to express opposition to any Convention of States resolutions that come into the North Carolina General Assembly. Contact us at No Convention of States North Carolina (NoCOS-NC) for the current status of those resolutions.