Media/About/News

Like many of you, I have been heavily involved in politics for seemingly forever.  Activism for me has spanned over three decades and as hard as we try, things only seem to get worse.  Spending continues out of control and neither Republicans or Democrats ever seem to want to slow it down, on the contrary, both parties are committed to increasing spending at catastrophic pace.  We all know what the issues are, and we all understand we are in dire straits.  

State governments are increasingly being beaten down by federal edicts and mandatory spending increases. That’s why state legislators from all over the country are now looking at ways to fight back against a centralized federal government that has grown far beyond its constitutional limits.

Earlier this month in Arizona, hundreds of state legislators gathered to discuss solutions, and the words on everyone’s lips seemed to be “Article Five.”

The Ryan-Obama omnibus bill that just passed Congress has Big-Government politicians in both parties rejoicing. It has a $1.1 trillion price tag and does nothing to reduce the gargantuan debt we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. Including entitlement obligations, that debt now exceeds a stupefying $200 trillion. The omnibus bill is over 2000 pages in length and was offered up at the 11th hour to a Congress eager to get home for the holidays.

Regional Director David Schneider was on the radio in Wichita Friday morning building support for the Convention of States resolution in Kansas (HCR5010/SCR1603).

The team is hopeful of successful passage during the 2016 legislative season, but are asking constituents to put pressure on their state legislators, encouraging them to support HCR5010/SCR1603. We've made it simple to express your support.

To find your legislator's contact information, click here. 

To send a petition in support of the Convention of States Project directly to YOUR state legislators, click here. 

Some advocates of a convention for proposing amendments are endangering the Article V movement by claiming the states can use the Tenth Amendment to control the convention process. They are doing so even though the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has held that state legislatures’ Article V powers come from the Constitution directly, not from the Tenth Amendment.

The following article is the final edition of a 6-part series by Prof. Robert Natelson addressing conventions for proposing constitutional amendments. Prof. Natelson retired a few years ago from the University of Montana School of Law and is now senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute; his work has been cited in five Supreme Court cases since 2013. 

Parts I to V of this series discussed the background and nature of the Constitution’s “Convention for proposing Amendments.” This final installment surveys the most likely scenarios for calling a convention, and possible developments if 34 states apply on any one subject or an overlapping group of subjects.

Nebraska Sen. Laura Ebke wants to change {amend} the U.S. Constitution.

Ebke, who represents Saline, Fillmore, Jefferson, Thayer and the southeast portion of Lancaster counties, is spreading the word about Legislative Resolution 35, a document she introduced to the Nebraska Legislature that calls for a convention of U.S. states to amend the Constitution.

The following article is the fifth edition of a 6-part series by Prof. Robert Natelson addressing conventions for proposing constitutional amendments. Prof. Natelson retired a few years ago from the University of Montana School of Law and is now senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute; his work has been cited in five Supreme Court cases since 2013. 

Throughout the century and a half following adoption of the Constitution, Americans were frequently divided on the advisability of holding an amendments convention, and they were sometimes divided on technical points of Article V law. For the most part, however, leading participants seem to have understood the nature and scope of an amendments convention.

The following article is the fourth edition of a 6-part series by Prof. Robert Natelson addressing conventions for proposing constitutional amendments. Prof. Natelson retired a few years ago from the University of Montana School of Law and is now senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute; his work has been cited in five Supreme Court cases since 2013. 

Although there has not been a convention for proposing amendments, there has been a considerable amount of other amendment activity. Disputes arising from this activity have produced a series of reported court decisions interpreting Article V.

There are seven Articles that make up the content of the United States Constitution. Article V is very short and is solely there for the purpose of outlining how our government manual can be amended (changed). We don't have to wonder about the intent of the framers (those who debated and drafted the document) as to how we interpret the text. 

In the third edition of his 6-part series on Article V, Rob Natelson explains how Article V conventions have impacted national reform efforts.

During the century and a half after the Constitution’s ratification, the states repeatedly applied to Congress for an amendments convention. Although they never reached the threshold of two-thirds on any particular subject — and therefore never forced Congress to call a convention — they did enjoy some success in forcing constitutional change.

In late 2013, retired U.S. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn was diagnosed with Stage Four prostrate cancer, his fourth round with the disease.

“I went to the best physicians I could find,” Coburn related before a captive gathering of hundreds of state legislators on December 3. “I told them, ‘I don’t want you treating my pain.  I want you to kill the cancer. I don’t care what it takes.'”

In the second installment of his six-part series, Prof. Rob Natelson explains how the Founders struck upon the Convention of States option in Article V.

The commissioners who met in Philadelphia to propose a plan to render the American political system “adequate to the exigencies of the union” decided early in the proceedings to add a mechanism for amendment. Edmund Randolph’s Virginia Plan contemplated such a mechanism. The Virginia Plan did not specify what it would be, other than to provide that the consent of the national legislature should not be required.

He’s been threatening this for months, and now it’s finally here. The Associated Press reported yesterday that President Barack Obama's advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales. This “proposal” isn’t legislation--that would be too difficult and law-abiding. The President specifically asked his team to find a way to expand gun control without a vote in Congress.

An overzealous Environmental Protection Agency is waging war on industry across the nation, and it’s time for the states to strategize for a long-term victory.

For many veterans, their sacred oath to defend America doesn't end at the edge of the battlefield.

That's why Convention of States Project volunteers partnered with civics groups to honor local veterans of the armed services last month in Liberty, Missouri.

The following article was written by Prof. Rob Natelson, one of the nation's leading Article V scholars. It's the first in a six-part series that will explain everything you need to know about the Article V process. Prof. Natelson begins the first installment by reviewing the current movements to call a Convention of States, after which he concludes...

From education to healthcare, the federal government has never been shy about inserting itself into matters the states alone should control. Now the Federal Election Commission is setting its sights on what would seem to be the last bastion of state jurisdiction: state and local elections.

U.S. taxpayers spent $150 million building fancy, hotel-like "villas" staffed with private security for government employees working in Afghanistan rather than having them live on U.S. military bases at a fraction of the cost, according to the top government watchdog charged with monitoring wartime waste.

The government should terminate special billion-dollar tax credits and subsidies for solar energy programs because they are too costly and have failed to build the solar energy industry as promised, according to a new watchdog report.