Restoring America’s Constitutional Order: Article V

With the ringing in of 2025, a new chapter begins for America. The start of a new administration under Donald Trump, along with the promise of DOGE with Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk at the helm, may have us believing that the time for accountable governance and a return to our constitutional order is ahead. But such sentiment is unfounded.

Trump isn’t in office yet, and his ideas are already being shot down. Congress has passed its spending bill, one that rejected conservative efforts to limit federal spending, despite Vivek’s and Elon’s personal efforts in lobbying House Republicans. Further, not all Republicans are in lock step with Trump’s proposals, regardless of their majorities in the House and Senate. And though DOGE’s and Trump’s promises for a brighter future have legitimate standing, they are merely temporary fixes that can be easily undone.

The key for restraining the federal government’s growth and for restoring America’s constitutional order lies within our very Constitution: an Article V Convention of States.

Understanding Article V

Before considering the case for an Article V Convention, it is vital to understand what it is. Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first is when Congress can propose amendments, defined as “whenever two thirds of both houses [House and Senate] shall deem it necessary.” In turn, those amendments then must be ratified by three quarters of the states (38 states to pass). This method has been the only one practiced since America’s founding.

The second method occurs when “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” An Article V Convention is called when 34 states have all passed a similar resolution (called an “application”) by their state legislatures. The convention then drafts amendments, debates, and votes on what amendments to propose, which are limited by the scope of the convention. After the convention, the proposed amendments must be ratified by 38 states. (Click here for an excellent explanation of the full process by former Senator Jim DeMint.)

The Misleading Critics of Article V

While some believe that an Article V Convention should be called, others claim that it would be a dangerous endeavor. Groups as different as the John Birch Society and Common Cause have become vocal opponents of an Article V Convention. A common criticism is that such a convention would lead to a “runaway convention” that will somehow bring about an end to our freedoms and the republic itself. Some fear an effort to call forth a “Constitutional Convention” that would replace America’s government with something worse.

Those claims are deeply problematic, for these reasons:

First, the Article V process itself already sets limits on the behavior of the convention. Constitutional scholar Robert G. Natelson clarifies that the limits on delegates would be no different than that of prior interstate conventions. Natelson states: “Universal pre-constitutional practice tells us that states may select, commission, instruct, and pay their delegates as they wish, and may alter their instructions and recall them.”

This means that if a certain delegate decided to go rogue, then the state legislature could recall the delegate and send someone else who would follow established rules. Since state legislatures would have full control over their delegates, as well as amendments being restricted by the scope of the convention, the possibility of a rogue convention is highly doubtful.

Second, legal scholars recognize that an Article V Convention is a legitimate method. In 2014, a group of such scholars, which included several convention skeptics, signed what is called the Jefferson Statement where they unanimously agreed that the option of an Article V convention is “safe, effective, and necessary.”

Constitutional scholar Nick Dranias wrote that the “runaway convention” myth falls flat when looking at the precedent of other interstate conventions as well as the clarity of Article V when examined by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Many of the anti-Article V Convention talking points have been debunked by prominent legal and constitutional scholars.

Third and most important, critics fail to recognize the very wisdom of America’s Framers — the men who conceived the idea of a convention. Some critics have claimed that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, including James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, opposed such a method. This is false.

Hamilton argued in favor of an Article V Convention in Federalist No. 85, stating, “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” John Jay was a strong proponent of a convention when he sought to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, resulting in the Massachusetts Compromise.

James Madison in Federalist No. 43 states that Article V “equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors.” Madison reinforced his support of such a convention in his August 28, 1830 letter to Edward Everett. In sum, the Framers saw an Article V Convention as a necessary means for the people and states to stop encroachments on their freedoms by an abusive federal government.

The truth is that these narratives against Article V were built upon falsehoods created by power-hungry progressives. As Natelson notes, progressives fear that such a convention would result in amendments that would restrict their power. And unfortunately, these falsehoods have misinformed many conservatives.

Why an Article V Convention is the Solution

So, why should the states now call for an Article V Convention?

It has become obvious that despite who we send to Congress or the White House, the federal government has gone rogue and remains rogue. Regardless of which party is in charge, Washington is not going to stop itself from abusing, exploiting, and profiting from its power. Those in power cannot stop themselves. The Framers feared precisely such tyranny. George Mason, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, said that “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.”

The Framers also knew that should the federal government abuse its power, the solution would lie within the people and states to restore the nation’s constitutional order. That very wisdom has been carried on and called upon by those who believed in the Framers’ wisdom, including President Ronald Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and President Dwight Eisenhower. Prominent figures who today have come out in favor of an Article V Convention include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Vice President-Elect JD Vance, Senator Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.

The time has come to realize that the only way We the People are going to fix and restore our constitutional order is by calling an Article V Convention. The structural changes that we need to curb federal abuses — such as congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and amendments limiting the scope of federal authority — can only be achieved by bypassing the federal government itself.

Polling done by Trafalgar Group has shown that there is wide bipartisan consensus for an Article V Convention. At the end of the day, this problem is not a matter of red vs. blue, rural vs. urban, or rich vs. poor, but freedom vs. tyranny. We might not all agree on every policy matter or issue, but we can agree that to ensure the very freedoms we enjoy, we must rein in the federal government.

Sure, a Convention of States and the ratification of any proposed amendments would not be the complete solution. It would, however, be a leap in the right direction.

READ MORE from Hunter Oswald:

Remembering the Christmas Truce of 1914

Ohio Protects Girls From Boys Who Want to Use Their Bathroom

The post Restoring America’s Constitutional Order: Article V appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.