Subjects Inside: Article
Application Counts By
AVC Legislative Report, CRS Reports,
Convention of State, Compact for America, COS, CFA--Which States are Which?, The Historic Record of COS, COS, CFA Laws, COS Articles, CRS Reports on COS/CFA, COS, CFA Financial Records, CFA Financials, COS Financials, COS/CFA Financial Conclusions, John
Birch Society, Con-Con, Runaway
Convention, Who Called the Convention, Congressional
Vote on a "Runaway" Convention, "Obey
the Constitution, Only Two More States", Illegal Rescissions, The Phony Burger Letter, The
Madison Letter, Fotheringham Exchange, JBS Articles, Sibley
Lawsuit, General Interest, Article V.org,
Robert Natelson, History
of Article V, Counting the Applications, The Numeric Count History, Congressional Decision of May 5, 1789,
Development of Article V, The Committee of the Whole, The Committee of Detail, August 30, September 10, Committee of Style, September 15, Official Government Documents,
History of FOAVC, Founders,
Page, 14th Amendment, The Electoral Process, Packets
, (Applications grouped by numeric count as required by the Constitution),
Same Subject (Applications grouped by amendment subject, not required by the Constitution for a convention call)
Page 6 C--Continuing The Discussion of JBS, Eagle Forum
"Obey the Constitution," Seizing Control, Titles Matter, "Only Two More States"
Typical JBS/Eagle Forum pieces from 2009, 2010 and 2015 on an Article V Convention presenting
"arguments" for not holding an Article V Convention are presented at left. Images may
be clicked to read the article (linked to the JBS website). While
various articles may discuss an "argument" in more detail the basic
premise of the JBS/Eagle Forum campaign has never varied since 1983.
The basis, and therefore the presumed facts on which the argument is
based, remains unchanged and recalcitrant. There appears to be no
effort by JBS/Eagle Forum to revise its arguments in light of any new
developments or information since 1983.
FOAVC believes any prevention about
a subject should show both sides in order to allow the reader the
ability to judge for himself.
FOAVC has no concerns about posting articles by
JBS/Eagle Forum on its site in order to examine and discuss the
arguments and tactics presented. FOAVC intended to post the full
articles on this site but was denied permission by JBS who required links to its site instead. JBS/Eagle
not believe in freedom of exchange of ideas as shown by it blocking of
access to its pages for commenting purposes to members of FOAVC (Click
image left to enlarge).
Notably JBS/Eagle Forum sell their
information for a profit. Clicking on links in the stories either
brings a link to buy a subscription or produces additional pages to the
article for various campaign products. FOAVC does not "sell" public record for a profit.
The issue being discussed by JBS/Eagle Forum is public record. This is
why our record of state applications is open to all on
our site and available for free download as is all material on the
FOAVC website. FOAVC has already
demonstrated JBS/Eagle Forum statements about the Federal Convention of
1787 is false. We do not believe any group should profit from false information about an important national issue.
"Obey the Constitution"
In all its articles JBS/Eagle Forum
repeatedly calls for
the Constitution to be obeyed by the United States Government. The
articles do not present evidence proving constitutional disobedience by
the government. Instead JBS/Eagle Forum assumes whatever subject (such as Obamacare, 2009 article) they mention is disobedience to the Constitution.
Rather than amend the document, which JBS/Eagle Forum maintains
(without evidence) the government will not obey anyway, JBS/Eagle Forum
say the solution is for the government to obey the Constitution as written and intended by the Founders.
It is a matter of public record the Founders
put the convention clause in the Constitution. Therefore it is a
reasonable conclusion the Founders "intended" the convention clause be obeyed. Indeed, as is discussed elsewhere on this site (See Hamilton's Federalist 85 comments (See: Page 11 B); Madison's Discussion in Congress May 5, 1789, (See: Page 11 C), the Founders were
emphatic about the convention clause being obeyed.
JBS/Eagle Forum has never explained why, as the
states have repeatedly satisfied the requirement of Article V mandating
Congress call a convention as proven by public record,
obeying this clause of the Constitution is any different from obeying
the rest of the Constitution. They fail to explain how
conservatives desiring the Constitution be obeyed in all aspects (including calling a convention) is
As the states have applied and obedience to the
Constitution mandates a convention call which JBS/Eagle Forum oppose,
the only conclusion possible, based on JBS/Eagle Forum's own statement,
is that JBS/Eagle Forum is either "misguided," believe only certain parts of the
Constitution should be obeyed or actually support the Government not
adhering "to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders." In any case, their argument obviously contradicts itself.
Seizing Control of the Convention
Forum opposes an Article V Convention whether politically supported by
liberals or conservatives. One of the
tactics used by JBS/Eagle Forum is to assert if a convention is held
the other political side (usually liberals) will
control of it and thus doom the nation. (See 2009 article). According to JBS/Eagle Forum a convention should not be
held because either the other political side will
seize control of it.
JBS/Eagle Forum have
never provided any evidence the liberal community (for example) is even
interested in "controlling" an Article V Convention by publication or
quotes from known liberal websites where control of a convention is
routinely contemplated, let alone planned. A examination of political composition of this nation and
the requirements of the Constitution prove this JBS/Eagle Forum
As shown by the Gallup Poll
above Americans identifying themselves as either Republicans or
Democrats has steadily declined since 1988. Currently only 26 percent
identify themselves as Republicans, 29 percent as Democrats. Only 38
percent identify themselves as "conservatives" and 24 percent as
"liberals" thus closely approximating those who identify themselves as
Republicans or Democrats. The vast majority of Americans now identify
themselves as "Independent" that is affiliated with no political party
As with Congress, an Article V Convention requires a two thirds vote by the state delegations
to propose an amendment (See Page 18). Beyond this first constitutional barrier lies
a second--a three fourths favorable vote either in the state
legislatures or in state ratification conventions called to consider
the ratification question. Figures do not lie. Even if every American
identified as either "liberal" or "conservative" supported an amendment
proposal, by themselves they
cannot achieve proposal, let alone ratification of that proposal.
Constitution requires broad political support to pass an amendment. No
single political persuasion in this nation possesses sufficient numeric
strength to overcome the super majority requirements of the Constitution.
This fact explains why the Constitution has been ratified only 27 times
in its history with eleven of those amendments proposed in the original
Bill of Rights which most historians agree should be viewed as part of
the original Constitution. Facts of political reality prove the
JBS/Eagle Forum assertion of a single political faction of "liberals"
or "conservations" seizing control of a convention and putting "their"
agenda through without consent from the other side, false.
Another tactic of a JBS/Eagle Forum is assumption of fact without
evidence or proof. For example on Page 1 of the 2009 article
the writer states "...Congress shall call a convention for
proposing Amendments (commonly referred to as a "constitutional
convention" or "con-con")." The facts prove this statement of common
reference incorrect. A Google search on November 22, 2016 of the term
"constitutional convention" shows about 3,520,000 results nearly all of
which refer to the Federal Convention of 1787.
On the other hand,
according Google, the term "Article V Convention" shows about
19,600,000 results nearly all of which refer to the amendments process
found in Article V of the Constitution. Therefore by a ratio of nearly 6 to
1 the most
commonly used reference when referring to a "convention for
Amendments" is an "Article V Convention" and not a "constitutional
This distinction has significance. An Article V Convention refers
specifically to the convention referred to in Article V of the United
States Constitution meaning a "convention for proposing Amendments...as
part of this
[Emphasis added]. The JBS/Eagle Forum reference to "constitutional
convention" or "con-con" by their own admission refers to the Federal
Convention of 1787 as they interpret what occurred at the convention
which, as already discussed, is false.
JBS/Eagle Forum, without proof then assumes
an Article V Convention of today operating under a completely different
form of government will become a "runaway" "constitutional convention" or
"con-con" even though historic record irrefutably proves no such event ever occurred. There is no
reference in the Constitution to a "constitutional convention" or
"con-con." The Constitution clearly limits the Article V Convention both as to
purpose and scope. Thus JBS/Eagle Forum, whenever using the term
"constitutional convention" or "con-con," refers to something not in the
Constitution and based on assumptions of history public record proves
"Only Two More States"
A famous slogan of JBS, based on
its own inaccurate tabulation of
applications, was that as of 1983 only "two more states" were required
to cause a convention call on the Balanced Budget
Amendment (BBA) (See page 1, 2009 Article). As JBS/Eagle Forum opposed
a balanced budget amendment the implication was JBS/Eagle Forum
supporters had to act now
before two more states applied. As shown by public record, by 1979 the states had achieved the necessary two thirds
requirement on that subject alone if this were the standard for a convention call. The states reached the actual numeric count standard
set by the Constitution decades before 1979.
Indeed, as the political
objective of JBS/Eagle Forum is preventing any amendment subject from
reaching the two thirds standard thus preventing a convention call,
their campaign has failed miserably. Besides a balanced budget
amendment the record proves the states met the two thirds standard on
three other subjects: Direct Election of Senators (1911); Apportionment
(1978); Repeal of Federal Income Tax (1989). Based on the facts of public record
the "two more states" statement by JBS/Eagle Forum is false.
Page Last Updated: 9-APRIL 2017