The first knee-jerk reaction of many freedom fighters to the idea of applying for an Article V amendments convention for the purpose of submitting to the states a national debt relief constitutional amendment is, “The threat of a runaway convention makes it too risky.”
However, those who choose to publically take that position must perform two steps before their opposition can be considered legitimate.
- Acknowledge the competing risk of continuing down the path our country is on, concluding that the convention is riskier. Unlike speculative concerns about an amendments convention, the threat of a runaway Congress has already been realized. Worse, that’s just a symptom of deeper problems. Having investigated and described many of these, economist Thomas Sowell has arrived at a sobering pessimism about the future of American liberty. Engaging his arguments and widespread similar ones is a prerequisite for judging that the risk of a convention is greater than doing nothing.
- Familiarize yourself with the excellent recent research on the issue. Begin here: Ten Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention. Two similar resources are Frequently Asked Questions pages from BalanceOurBudgetNow.com and RestoringFreedom.Org. A detailed report by law professor Robert G. Natelson is available for advanced students, but this is optional (although everyone should give it a quick scan).
Honest people can disagree about this option — but only after becoming informed and acknowledging the competing risks. To put it bluntly, simply declaring or insinuating, “Too risky!” without making an argument based on actual information and a balanced risk assessment is not honest, and therefore not a valid basis to oppose this proposal.