When talking about using the 2nd Option in Article 5 to add a Term Limits Amendment to the US Constitution, the first question most ask is “How many states have already passed applications for a Term Limits Convention?”
You think it would be a simple answer, but as we all know, when you’re dealing with law or government, nothing is ever simple.
There are 17 State Legislatures who have passed applications for an Article 5 Convention for three topics, one of which is Term Limits for US Congress. There are 4 State Legislatures who have passed applications for an Article 5 Convention solely for Term Limits for US Congress.
Here’s the tricky part. You CANNOT add the 17 and 4 together.
When dealing with law, whether it is contracts or legislation, there are logical terms that determine conditions, inclusions, or exclusions.
The 17 States who passed applications for 3 topics did so with inclusive qualifiers. Let me explain. Imagine you have two bowls. In one bowl you have an orange, an apple, and a pear. In the second bowl you have just an apple. You are looking at 20 bowls total. Are all 20 bowls the same?
In the Convention of States Projects application they figuratively said, “We want an orange AND an apple AND a pear.” The problem when you’re speaking legalese is when you use ANDs, it binds the parts together and they can’t be divided up, so you have to look at it as if all 3 pieces of fruit are glued together. You can’t take the apples (term limits) out of those 17 bowls and add them to the apples(term limits) from the other three bowls.
The problem the Convention of States Project has run into is the Democratic Party sees one of their pieces of fruit, limiting federal government authority, as partisan and has therefore voted against the COS application in every state the application has been voted on.
The Convention of States Project began shortly after I started the Term Limits for US Congress movement and I wrote to the head of COS at the time, warning they would come out strong in States where the GOP held both the State House and State Senate, but once they ran out of such States, they would hit a brick wall due to the Democratic Party seeing one of their topics as partisan. Unfortunately, my prediction was true and the potential of their application reaching 34 is very low.
Two years ago I called a conference in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and invited members of the other organizations to attend to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each major player, and how the only realistic path to success would be for all of us to work together, to which everyone agreed.
In this meeting one issue we discussed was the bowls of fruit and how the ANDs had created a single path for COS and a major roadblock. What I suggested is for the Convention of States Project to reword their application to figuratively something such as, “We want an Orange OR we want an Apple OR we want a Pear OR any combination of the three.” Using ORs creates 7 paths for success for an Article 5 Convention and allows each piece of “fruit” to be used individually while not excluding two or even all three pieces being achieved together.
Now some will argue that the applications for an Article 5 Convention don't have to be identical and will think the 20 can all add together. Well, they should consider this. The verbiage in Article 5 doesn't say, so if this were to go to the US Supreme Court, the next thing's they'll look at are "intent" and "precedent."
Intent based on documentation at the time is debatable and could go either way, which will leave the court with "precedent." In 1929, Wisconsin approached the US Congress, stating over 34 requests for an Article 5 Convention had been submitted, so they were required to call the Convention. The US Congress ignored them due to the fact there had not been 34 requests for the same topic. In the 90 years that have followed, which would be 45 Congresses, an Article 5 Convention has not been called with a result being 46 Congresses have set a "precedent" that an Article 5 Convention will not be called unless 34 States apply for a Convention for the "same" topic.
So, how many applications for an Article 5 Convention have passed that include Term Limits? 21
Can all 21 be counted together towards the 34 needed to call the Convention? No
Should you consider this disheartening? Not at all
We have issues to resolve and coordination to be done, but we know many states have already proven a willingness to make legislative efforts to call an Article 5 Convention to add Term Limits for US Congress.
Covid put a kink in the timeline, slowing progress, but the pace is now picking back up.
Bob Reid
Founder/Executive Director
Term Limits for US Congress- PAC
You think it would be a simple answer, but as we all know, when you’re dealing with law or government, nothing is ever simple.
There are 17 State Legislatures who have passed applications for an Article 5 Convention for three topics, one of which is Term Limits for US Congress. There are 4 State Legislatures who have passed applications for an Article 5 Convention solely for Term Limits for US Congress.
Here’s the tricky part. You CANNOT add the 17 and 4 together.
When dealing with law, whether it is contracts or legislation, there are logical terms that determine conditions, inclusions, or exclusions.
The 17 States who passed applications for 3 topics did so with inclusive qualifiers. Let me explain. Imagine you have two bowls. In one bowl you have an orange, an apple, and a pear. In the second bowl you have just an apple. You are looking at 20 bowls total. Are all 20 bowls the same?
In the Convention of States Projects application they figuratively said, “We want an orange AND an apple AND a pear.” The problem when you’re speaking legalese is when you use ANDs, it binds the parts together and they can’t be divided up, so you have to look at it as if all 3 pieces of fruit are glued together. You can’t take the apples (term limits) out of those 17 bowls and add them to the apples(term limits) from the other three bowls.
The problem the Convention of States Project has run into is the Democratic Party sees one of their pieces of fruit, limiting federal government authority, as partisan and has therefore voted against the COS application in every state the application has been voted on.
The Convention of States Project began shortly after I started the Term Limits for US Congress movement and I wrote to the head of COS at the time, warning they would come out strong in States where the GOP held both the State House and State Senate, but once they ran out of such States, they would hit a brick wall due to the Democratic Party seeing one of their topics as partisan. Unfortunately, my prediction was true and the potential of their application reaching 34 is very low.
Two years ago I called a conference in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and invited members of the other organizations to attend to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each major player, and how the only realistic path to success would be for all of us to work together, to which everyone agreed.
In this meeting one issue we discussed was the bowls of fruit and how the ANDs had created a single path for COS and a major roadblock. What I suggested is for the Convention of States Project to reword their application to figuratively something such as, “We want an Orange OR we want an Apple OR we want a Pear OR any combination of the three.” Using ORs creates 7 paths for success for an Article 5 Convention and allows each piece of “fruit” to be used individually while not excluding two or even all three pieces being achieved together.
Now some will argue that the applications for an Article 5 Convention don't have to be identical and will think the 20 can all add together. Well, they should consider this. The verbiage in Article 5 doesn't say, so if this were to go to the US Supreme Court, the next thing's they'll look at are "intent" and "precedent."
Intent based on documentation at the time is debatable and could go either way, which will leave the court with "precedent." In 1929, Wisconsin approached the US Congress, stating over 34 requests for an Article 5 Convention had been submitted, so they were required to call the Convention. The US Congress ignored them due to the fact there had not been 34 requests for the same topic. In the 90 years that have followed, which would be 45 Congresses, an Article 5 Convention has not been called with a result being 46 Congresses have set a "precedent" that an Article 5 Convention will not be called unless 34 States apply for a Convention for the "same" topic.
So, how many applications for an Article 5 Convention have passed that include Term Limits? 21
Can all 21 be counted together towards the 34 needed to call the Convention? No
Should you consider this disheartening? Not at all
We have issues to resolve and coordination to be done, but we know many states have already proven a willingness to make legislative efforts to call an Article 5 Convention to add Term Limits for US Congress.
Covid put a kink in the timeline, slowing progress, but the pace is now picking back up.
Bob Reid
Founder/Executive Director
Term Limits for US Congress- PAC
RSS Feed