The Plot Thickens, Here We Go Again

 By Karen Schumacher

In 2024, the Convention of States (COS) was actively urging Idaho to pass resolutions advancing its agenda to call for a Constitutional Convention for amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Rep. Tanner, and others,  supported a resolution for term limits,  Sen. Ricks and Vander Woude supported a balanced budget resolution, while Sen. Lakey, and others, supported a balanced budget and term limit resolution.  A series of articles were written on COS in 2024 with a historical review of Article V, COS background work in Idaho and political interference, and individuals behind the organization.  All 2024 legislative resolutions failed to move forward.

Supporters

In 2025, COS indirectly shamed Idaho for “choosing to stay on the sidelines” and not continue its quest for a Convention.  But COS is now back at it.

In this 2026 legislative session, Rep. Tanner, Sen. Ricks, Rep. Vander Woude, and Rep. Shirts have introduced HCR 25 for a balanced budget amendment which was referred to the House State Affairs committee.  Rep. Shirts introduced HCR 23 for the term limit amendment and it has been referred to the House Judiciary, Rules & Administration committee.

There is a group of national COS supporters including Mark Levin, Rick Santorum (who received $335,483 in 2024), Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.  The list of those currently endorsing COS includes current government officials who could fix the budget and term limit issues now, while in office, instead of going through a time consuming and potentially dangerous process for a convention to fix the problems.  What’s up with that?

Even crazier, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is on the list of supporters!  Why doesn’t he use his current role to facilitate balanced budget and term limit legislation or amendments?  Why doesn’t Sen. Paul and Sen. Cruz get together and get the job done?  Maybe because amendments on those issues really aren’t wanted.  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has even been in Idaho supporting COS.

Rep. Tanner continues as an advocate for Constitutional amendments.  Rep. Joe Alfieri had an interesting comment on COS, “We have a process problem — the process problem that exists is the way that the federal government is functioning,”…“It’s the states’ right to define what the federal government does. We have to take that right back.”

With all due respect to Rep. Alfieri, it is the federal government not following the Constitution that is the problem, and it is not state rights that define what the federal government does which has been challenged many times in court.  What the federal government does, or at least supposed to do, is outlined in the U.S. Constitution with defined enumerated powers, and to pay its debts.  As for a balanced budget, Idaho doesn’t seem to have any problem taking federal money even though that money contributes to a deficit ridden federal budget.  Maybe Idaho should exercise its state right to decline that federal money.

This historical perspective discusses how the federal budgetary process has been warped over the years.  Congress has just added laws to justify its maleficence.  There are also some who describe how a balanced budget amendment would not work, mostly due to the feckless nature of Congress.  An amendment doesn’t fix bad behavior.

Back to COS, the below PDF lists Idaho elected officials who received money from the COS Action political committee in 2024, including some who are again supporting COS.  The COS Action 2024 Form 990 also lists these candidates, and a few others, in supporting its mission.  The COS political committee was terminated in 2024.

Current Status

Billionaire Tim Dunn, the deep pocket behind COS, is still the Director of his non-profit, America First Policy Institute, which holds over $25 million dollars in assets, and is a COS Action Director monetarily influencing Idaho politics.  Dunn is still causing political headaches in Texas with his billions.  The Institute contributes to the Immigration Reform Law Institute, America First Policy Institute-Pennsylvania, Constitutional Coalition, and Susan B. Anthony List Inc..  These are all worthy causes that self-described conservatives would probably support.  If the original Constitution was followed, perhaps none of these groups would even need to exist.

While North Dakota joined COS in 2017, an effort was made in 2021 to rescind its resolution, and again in 2025.  COS President, Mark Meckler, provided an interesting speech to the North Dakota legislature opposing the 2025 rescission.  One of his more interesting comments is on page 2, “…this plan of relying on Congress to do what the nation needs is not working.  More importantly, it has never worked. When was the last time a government voluntarily limited its own authority?”  The way he states it almost insinuates the Constitution has never worked.  Indeed, Congress has passed 27 amendments, several of which have limited its power.  Perhaps it is not working because the Constitution itself is not being followed.

Another interesting comment he made on page 3 after attacking national “left-wing” groups for opposing a Convention of States, “…they are afraid that it would remove their power in DC, and return it to you, the state legislatures.”  Is he suggesting a Convention of States would give power to state legislatures rather than placing constraints on the federal budget and forcing term limits?  He then called for the North Dakota legislature to “…use the constitutional authority the Founders gave you to intervene on behalf of the people and stop federal overreach.”  Neither balanced budget or term limit amendments really address federal overreach.  The effort to rescind COS in North Dakota failed.

Historically, a provision to address federal overreach was already provided by Marbury v. Madison, that “…a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”  “The Court ruled that because the Constitution is the paramount law, any legislative act contrary to it is not law and is void.”  States just need to exercise it more often as defined in the Tenth Amendment.  As noted by Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D., “Next, it is a well-known fact that the COS organization opposes any effort by states to refuse to enact unconstitutional programs or policies of the federal government.”  That would be truly exercising state rights.

The House State Affairs committee passed HCR 25 on February 3 and filed for a third reading on February 4.  The download video of the February 3 meeting is here.  In his testimony, Rep. Shirts now states the intention is not to call a convention but rather to “threaten” Congress with calling a convention, even though the resolution specifically calls for one.  He also discussed a template amendment with a ten-year debt break, basically outlining how Congress should get out of debt.  That seems to already go beyond just the balanced budget amendment.

Historical Misrepresentation

In another speech to the Kansas Senate Committee in 2018, Meckler insisted “George Mason specifically predicted that the federal government would one day overpower the states. And that is why he insisted that Article V include a way for states to propose constitutional amendments through a state-controlled convention.”

In truth, while Mason did express concerns, it was actually Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) who “proposed to remedy this perceived problem by requiring Congress to call a convention of the states for proposing amendments upon the application of two-thirds of the states…”, and then “succeeded in inserting the language providing for a convention upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.”  James Wilson was the delegate who moved “to require three-fourths of the states for ratification of an amendment.”  In truth, several delegates debated the state convention and ratification issue.

This change to Article V came from the Committee on Style and Arrangement that included Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris.  The Committee didn’t draft the final language of the proposed constitution (pg 206) “until a month before the end of the Federal Convention.”  Mason wasn’t even on the committee, however, “Madison’s twelve amendments were based on Mason’s ideas.”  In the end, Mason refused to sign the Constitution but is remembered for his contribution to the Bill of Rights.

The point is, Mr. Meckler has a history of distorting history.  His statement that “Mason’s proposal was adopted without dissent” is a distortion of what actually happened.

Areas of Concern

Perhaps it is the “Congress and Convention Procedures” that legitimize the massive concern over how a convention would be conducted.  Issues not defined include how delegates are chosen, the number of votes per state, voting thresholds, and if Congress can refuse to send proposed amendments to the states.  Since there is no procedure, it might just be possible Congress could refuse to send proposed amendments to the states for ratification.  Given current COS supporters in Congress won’t address the two issues, refusing to send proposed amendments to states might just be possible.  Additionally, “There is also no clear legal precedent on whether a court could or would force Congress to act if it refused to call a convention.”

Even Madison expressed concerns about adding Article V, “This apprehension follows from the context of how the convention only to amend the Articles of Confederation became a convention for the writing of an entirely new Constitution in its place (pg 916).”  That’s right, what was supposed to be a couple of amendments turned into a whole scrapping of one document and creation of a new one, and Madison understood it could happen again.

However, Meckler already has it all figured out with a “pre-convention planning” strategy, where, apparently, his organization will decide what is lacking in Article V.  Part of his strategy is seen now, “requiring resolutions,” “with each resolution explicitly limited to the three reform categories.”  Idaho representatives are already falling for Meckler’s plan by creating resolutions with limited categories, term limits and balanced budget.

Other COS strategies include a plan for state delegate selection, voting rules, appointing delegates bound to resolution limits, proxy voting, and recalls for non-compliance.  For someone who so stringently clings to the ideals of state rights, Meckler has chosen to create this model without a state’s right to debate how it would enact Article V with constituent input, and passing a statute that enshrines it.  At least that is the way it is supposed to work, not just following the rulings from someone outside of the state.

COS does discuss two types of conventions but its link to its strategy comes up as a 404.  Another COS strategy is just waiting around for a new group of legislators.

Again in truth, out of over 11,000 proposed amendments, including proposed amendments for a balanced budget and term limits, 27 Constitutional amendments have passed, all initiated by Congress.  Six amendments have not been ratified by the states (Table 1).  COS needs 34 states to initiate an amendment, 38 states are needed to ratify an amendment.  Right now, states that have joined COS stands at 20 with 14 states still needed.

The Plot Thickens

David M. Walker served as the United States comptroller general from 1998 to 2008 and founded the now defunct Comeback America Initiative (CAI).  He and COS supporter Ken Cuccinelli, have joined together to promote a convention.

In this article, it is mentioned that the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, in which Walker is the Chair, and  Cuccinelli a Director, have drafted a lawsuit against Congress charging that all resolutions for a convention since the late 1700’s to 1979 should be combined as they meet the threshold of 34, regardless of resolutions’ topics, and regardless of states having rescinded their resolutions, they would still count.  Called an Aggregation strategy, it involves counting all applications for a convention to reach the needed threshold.  Congress even proposed legislation in 2022 that would aggregate resolutions!  According to the article, this draft lawsuit has been shown to Attorneys General and legislators in several states.  There is no link to the actual draft lawsuit in the article, nonetheless other media sites have reported on it.

However, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a convention supporter, posted a video in 2020 with Former Governor Scott Walker and others who suggested using aggregation and filing a lawsuit against Congress.  David Biddulph stated records of applications are “scattered” without formal storage, however, application information is held by Congressional Records, albeit without formal storage, and Wikipedia has a chronological list.

Biddulph mentions filing a mandamus which was found unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison.  Ohio Rep. Matt Huffman goes on to say that states “make the rules for the federal government” and are “in effect like a board of directors that dictate policy, or should…to the elected federal officers” (Hmmm, isn’t it the people through elected representation that dictate policy?  Well, it used to be). What he goes on to describe, not everyone agreeing, is exactly what was addressed by Federalist No. 85, which Mr. Biddulph had quoted as just calling for a convention.  The full Federalist No. 85 should be read for a deeper understanding of what Publius was saying.

Further discussion was held on what options could be explored to push a convention, one of which is focusing on the public because they just don’t understand, and defining how money would be spent in emergencies.

A more interesting discussion was about using a TABOR or Swiss debt brake model (5:30” mark) in the balanced budget amendment, the same language used by Rep. Shirts.  It is unclear how this model would work as Switzerland has a different government and tax structure than the U.S..  The influence in thinking is already occurring as seen with language used by Rep. Shirts.

Rep. Huffman begged the question, “Should the states control policy of the federal government?”  And, if not agreeing with that, the Constitution and federalist papers should be read, and suggested there should be ongoing amendments to the Constitution.

The point being, in the background there are other forces, at multiple levels, that this agenda for a convention is being pursued. The front of it is a simple resolution to call for a convention but the plan goes much deeper.

Reflections

Ironically, “Gerry also warned against putting blind trust in the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention, cautioning that even the most respected figures could make grave errors.”  Guess that supports the concern over a runaway convention.  But more concerning is Idaho legislators following directions from someone who doesn’t understand Article V history, who has been involved in several different defunct organizations, who is tied to someone that uses his money to influence political landscapes, including Idaho, and whose ideologies may be perceived by some as extreme.  Common today is so many political figures who behave in such unethical ways, heed should be paid to Gerry’s warning.

There have been many articles written about this agenda, maybe some of which are outlandish, but others exploring the issue more broadly and more thoughtfully.  But, perhaps reading the history of the Founders, their ideas and thoughts that were debated, and considering their wisdom should be the way to understand this issue.  This is not an issue in which to become enamored or responded to emotionally.  Every aspect should be given careful thought, the Founders providing the best understanding.  Then let your legislator, House Judiciary, Rules and Administration (hjud@house.idaho.gov), and House State Affairs (hstaf@house.idaho.gov) know what vote should be taken.

“The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint … but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven c  heeks who do not need to raise their voices.”  C.S. Lewis