All three of those are vague:
What would those “fiscal restraints” be?
How would it “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”?
And what would the term limits be?
Please note that the second question really lets the horses out of the barn door. By calling a Convention of the States to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” you’ve invited a top-to-bottom redrafting of our Constitution because the entire Constitution deals with the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
So you shouldn’t pretend that somehow this Convention of the States would somehow be self-limiting.
As to the proposed purpose to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,” let me simply point out that such fiscal handcuffing is economic idiocy and would risk imperiling our economy in times of a downturn. The only reliable medicine for bringing large economies like ours out of a recession is deficit spending. It’s like the economy has cancer and you won’t give it radiation or chemotherapy. It’s like the economy has diabetes, and you won’t give it insulin. You’ll just let the economy die.
Had “fiscal restraints” been in place in 1933, we would never have gotten out of the Great Depression or been able to win World War II. Had they been in place in 2009, we would never have gotten out of the Great Recession, which would have turned into another Great Depression, with millions more lives ruined.
At the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, let me note that we also don’t believe in term limits. We believe that the people should be able to decide for themselves who should represent them.
Let me also note that we are not categorically opposed to amending the Constitution. In fact, we strongly favor a constitutional amendment that would say, “Corporations aren’t persons, and money isn’t speech.” But we believe the Article V route for amending the Constitution is a reckless one.
We believe the Constitution should be amended the old-fashioned way, by having Congress pass, by a two-thirds margin in the House and the Senate, any legislation to amend it, and that three-quarters of the state legislatures must approve it. This is a cleaner, safer way to go about the amendment process.
Once you go down the Article V route, there is no telling what the delegates might tamper with, including our fundamental freedoms as described in the Bill of Rights and successive amendments to the Constitution.
This concern for protecting our cherished rights that are enshrined in the Constitution is why one of the most conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices of the last century, Antonin Scalia, opposed the Article V route. Here’s what he said in 2014: “I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it? … A Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea.”
It is surprising to me that so many conservatives are ignoring the prudent advice of one of their patron saints.
Thank you for hearing me out.