A proposal asking Congress to call a constitutional convention to place fiscal limits on the federal government failed to muster enough support to get out of the Senate Thursday.
The resolution received 22 votes, five short of the two-thirds majority needed to gain passage. Even if it had passed, the resolution was a long shot in the House.
Lawmakers were looking to use a provision of the U.S. Constitution to get around an intransigent Congress to call a convention to amend the hallowed document.
Two-thirds of the states need to agree to force a convention. Any constitutional amendment adopted at the convention would later need ratification from three-fourths, or 38, of the states.
No such convention has ever been assembled, despite an estimated 750 applications made by the states over the years.
It’s a far different approach from how the Constitution has always been changed, with 27 amendments passed by two-thirds of Congress and then ratified by the states.
The Kansas legislation is part of a national effort led by the Convention of States Project to pass legislation calling for a constitutional convention.
Twelve other states have already passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention, according to the group’s website. Resolutions are being considered in more than 20 others. Missouri passed a resolution last year.
Supporters say a constitutional convention gives states the ability to propose reforms that are needed in Washington. In this case, the goal was to wrest control of federal spending. They argued that a convention can only propose amendments to the Constitution, not rewrite the document.
Others are not so sure. They believe measures like the one pushed in Kansas could set the stage for rewriting the entire Constitution.
They were worried about the process for picking delegates, the rules governing the convention and the role of special interests might play in influencing the convention.
The Senate’s action drew praise from Kansas Center for Economic Growth, which called the bill a “risky” and “misinformed” proposal.
The center said the bill “opened the door to a top-to-bottom rewriting of our country’s founding document.”
