False: The 1787 convention was called solely to amend the Articles of Confederation, and it ran away. They’ll do it again.
Those who oppose a convention inaccurately claim that the Philadelphia Convention was called by the Continental Congress solely to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous approval of the states, and that the Convention ignored this limitation and created a new government, requiring only three-fourths of the states to ratify. They suggest a convention to propose a term limits amendment will also “run away” and propose a host of rogue amendments. The problem for those who fear a runaway is that the Philadelphia Convention was not called solely to amend the Articles and the ratification process was not changed.
As recent legal scholarship has made unmistakably clear, the 1787 convention was initially suggested by the Annapolis convention of 1786 which called upon the states to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 to take such steps as necessary “to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union,” in other words, to create a new government.
Virginia, by virtue of being first, “called” the convention and six other states thereafter followed with commissions including the broad language from the Annapolis Convention’s recommendation.
Then, in February 1787, the Continental Congress sought to pre-empt the states and call the convention for amendment purposes only. That motion actually failed. The Continental Congress instead endorsed the convention in a resolution stating that “in [its] opinion,” the convention should be held and limited to proposing amendments, but to report back such alterations as necessary to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union.” The Congress specifically did not “call” the convention, nor did it have the legal authority to either call it or limit it.
Ten of the 12 state delegations in Philadelphia had broad authority to draft a new Constitution. The 1787 convention reported its work back to the Continental Congress in keeping with the instructions set by Virginia; “to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in
Congress assembled.”
The “runaway” claim is an inaccurate and false myth. An Article V convention would have no such broad charge. Given the hundreds of analogous interstate and intrastate conventions in our nation’s history, there is no evidence to support the claim that delegates will attempt to run away with a convention.
