Some SC Republicans want to rein in the feds. They have to change the Constitution first
South Carolina could soon become the latest state to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution aimed at reining in the federal government’s power and spending.
But opponents of the measure say doing so could create unintended consequences in the future.
A panel of state senators voted Wednesday to advance a bill that calls for a constitutional convention, a little-used mechanism outlined in the Constitution that allows states, rather than Congress, to propose constitutional amendments. The vote was divided down party lines with Republican Sens. Chip Campsen, Rex Rice and Billy Garrett voting in favor and Democratic Sens. Mia McLeod and Vernon Stephens voting against.
If the measure becomes law, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, would make South Carolina the 18th state to call for a convention of states. States like Nebraska and Wisconsin passed legislation a few weeks ago. Under Taylor’s bill, South Carolina’s convention delegates would only be allowed to talk about checking federal spending, limiting federal power and setting term limits for members of Congress.
In order to call for a convention, two-thirds of state legislatures, or 34 of 50, would have to agree that one is needed. Congress would then call for a convention, and delegates from each state would discuss and vote on possible amendments, which would then need approval from three-fourths, or 38, of the states.
History of the legislation
It’s been seven years since Taylor first proposed legislation on the issue, and the effort has gained considerable momentum in South Carolina.
The House passed the measure by a 66-42 vote last year. Last month, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham joined Republicans at the State House to call on the Senate to pass it.
“It’s needed because ... the federal government is, at all levels, out of control,” Taylor told The State.
Campsen, R-Charleston, said he was initially against the bill, but changed his mind after reading why the founders included the provision in the Constitution for states to propose amendments. Campsen read quotes from founders like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who touted the provision as a way for states to check the federal government’s power.
“It only should be used in desperate times, but I think we have very desperate times,” Campsen said. “It’s not a first choice.”
The majority who testified Wednesday were against the convention of states, warning that Taylor’s proposal could lead to unintended consequences. That includes major changes to current parts of the Constitution such as the Second Amendment, the parts that prohibit slavery and women’s suffrage.
Garrett, R-McCormick, said while he supports a constitutional amendment, he shared concerns that the convention could get out of hand. He said he would propose an amendment in the full Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill to limit what topics could be discussed.
“I think we need to do some more work on this,” Garrett said. “I want to make sure that whatever we do makes sure we lock this thing down.”
Convention rarely used
An effort similar to a convention of states has only occurred once, when delegates scrapped the Articles of Confederation and created the current Constitution.
Taylor said an action that extreme is unlikely to happen again.
He said delegates to the 1787 convention gathered to do “anything necessary” to create a working form of government. If delegates tried now to significantly alter it, such as eliminate the First Amendment or Second Amendment, a small coalition of 13 states could stop them.
But Lynn Teague of the League of Women Voters said it’s unclear how the convention would be conducted or structured. She added that with the political divisions currently in the United States, many would not see amendments passed by a convention of states as legitimate. Any action could be seen as unpopular by one side or the other, Teague added.
“The prospect of further dividing our nation, we believe, is probably the most serious of them all,” Teague said. “We need to be very cautious when dealing with something as important or fundamental as our Constitution.”
Taylor said he has “great confidence” the Senate will pass the bill.
“This is the safety valve that in the last days our founders put in the Constitution,” Taylor said. “This is our time to do it.”
This story was originally published February 16, 2022 at 9:17 AM.
