On the recent observance of Constitution Day, a significant announcement was made concerning Parliament’s failure to address its responsibilities in relation to express and ministerial matters under Article 5. This marked a noteworthy moment for all involved.
The National Federalist Commission, a nonpartisan and official agency, has released an extensive report indicating that the Federal Foundation for Financial Sustainability should have initiated a treaty proposal 46 years ago aimed at amending fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the council took no action.
According to Article 5 of the Constitution, Congress can propose an amendment if two-thirds of both houses agree, or if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures, making it a viable part of the Constitution. The wording is just a bit complex, yet the gist is that Congress has the authority to propose amendments.
Over three years ago, the Federal Foundation for Financial Sustainability revealed that back in 1979, there was an active state application in Congress relevant to this issue. More specifically, 39 applications were pending: 30 focused on financial accountability, while the remaining nine pertained to broader topics. Notably, many constitutional experts, regardless of political affiliation, argue that when evaluating applications from 34 states, both overall and single-subject applications should be considered together.
With 1979’s applications clearly exceeding the requirement of 34 states, that should have prompted Congress to call for a treaty. Yet, since there hasn’t been a system in place from Congress to track, record, and count these applications, it’s been overlooked—the necessary conditions for invoking a convention have been met.
In 2015, the Judiciary Committee started working on collecting and managing state applications, but the records were incomplete. Fast forward to 2025, and the Judiciary Committee partnered with the National Federalist Committee to streamline these records, starting with applications related to fiscal responsibility. This was recognized as the most pressing issue, as the Independence Party argued that the criteria to invoke the treaty has already been satisfied. Work continues on other subject applications by the National Federalism Commission.
An analysis by the Commission confirmed prior knowledge that there were over 34 active state applications in 1979, and that number persisted for 25 years. Moreover, records show at least 34 active applications existing in 2016 and 2017 as well.
What’s shocking is that since 1979, the federal debt has skyrocketed—it’s gone from less than $1 trillion to over $37 trillion, and it’s escalating fast. On top of that, the dollar has lost nearly 80% of its value since then. These alarming facts underline Congress’s failure to act in a timely manner.
The sad reality is that Congress has long been reliant on excessive spending, deficits, and debt. This isn’t just a partisan issue; it’s one that necessitates resolution if we want future generations to fare better than we have. Ultimately, only constitutional reforms can compel Congress to cease saddling both current and future Americans with unreasonable debt obligations.
If Congress continues to delay, states may need to resort to legal action to defend their constitutional rights. Our founders understood that states must be able to propose amendments when Congress fails.
Those concerned about “runaway” conventions should take a moment to breathe. The treaty will focus solely on fiscal matters since past and ongoing state applications largely revolve around that theme. Additionally, 16 states have laws empowering them to recall representatives who stray beyond the specified topics in their applications. The National Federalism Commission has developed this model law.
In total, 38 states will be required to ratify the amendment. Given these safeguards, it seems we should worry more about the federal government running amok than about the possibility of an unregulated treaty.
It’s time for Congress to call this treaty. Actually, considering Article 5’s wording, this should happen automatically. Furthermore, Congress ought to think about requiring any proposed amendment to be ratified by a state treaty of pledged representatives, which would be the closest reflection of a referendum as allowed by the Constitution.
Additionally, Congress should pass a resolution calling for an Article V Convention to prevent a similar situation in the future. The Senate should also be informed of the importance of efficiently managing the processing of applications.
