Rebuttal to 'Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders' Plan'

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to rebut a theory presented by Professor Rob Natelson in his article entitled, “Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan” that fiduciary law principles can be applied to the convention process of Article V of the United States Constitution. Through such principles, the theory says, the states can regulate and control the election of convention delegates as well as the convention agenda. Professor Natelson primarily bases his theory on colonial-era quotations, which this article will show, are misinterpreted. Further, the quotes used are not best evidence of the true intent of the framers of the Constitution. After having disposed by evidential proof of Professor Natelson’s theory of fiduciary control of the amendment process, this article will present an alternative. A legal, constitutional method whereby the goal of Professor Natelson, limitation of any Article V Convention agenda, via state decisions can be achieved thus accomplishing the goal but by means which are not only constitutional, but were, as best evidence will prove, supported by the framers of the Constitution if not outright intended.The issue of who will control an Article V Convention is fundamental to this nation. Professor Natelson urges that a few control the convention. This author favors the people having control. Professor Natelson favors limiting a convention to a single, pre-determined issue as well as outcome. This article presents the former view thus allowing the reader, by comparison of the two proposals, to come his own conclusions regarding the kind of convention he prefers. As the states have already submitted more than enough applications to cause Congress to call a convention, the significance and determination of “how” a convention will be operated and by whom is critical to this nation.