Exploring Article 5: The Case for a Convention of States

Mark Pukita: 00:00:00

The following is an episode of the Grassroots Freedom Initiative Podcast. This episode is the audio from videos released on our YouTube and Rumble channels.

There may be times in this episode when we refer to information displayed on the screen that is impossible to provide in podcast format.

However, links to the video version of this episode, as well as links to sources mentioned in this episode can be found in this episode's Show Notes.

now the Grassroots Freedom Initiative Podcast.

So today we're here with Diana Telles, who is part of the Convention of States organization in Ohio.

We have agreed to have her on, and I have given her a list of questions that she had ahead of time that we're going to go through, and she's going to give us her responses to these questions. My goal here is not to debate her. My goal here is not to challenge her.

We're just going to have her tell the Convention of States side of the story, and then we're going to work to find a credible respondent from those people who do not believe the Convention of States is the way to go. And then what? We will go back and forth like a virtual debate and allow them to rebut each other's responses.

That is, if we can get someone from the other side to participate in this process. So that those are kind of the ground rules. We don't want negativity.

We just really want to explore, you know, the universe of ideas and thoughts and opinions and concepts around Article 5 and the Convention of States. So, Diana, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself and then we'll quickly get into the questions.

Diana Telles: 00:01:57

Sure. I'm Diana Tellis. I am the Ohio State Comms Coordinator for Convention of States Ohio. I've been with the organization five years, almost five years.

I joined right during: 2020

I knew that's what they were looking to do, and that was what the effort was. I'd gleaned that from this ad and was pretty immediate. Immediately sold on the effort, and it ended up being far more challenging to learn.

It's a lot. But the effectiveness of it, I think, has a lot of merit. It's an amazing opportunity.

It is a tool that is in the Constitution for moments just like this. So, I'm happy to be on board.

I have very recently joined my regional director, who oversees seven states to fly over states And I am now her assistant. So, I also have kind of a national position to a small one.

But I do get to learn a little more about what's going on in other states and assist in any way that I can there. My expertise is really in communications writing specifically. But there seems to be a lot of opportunity for that in convention estates.

A lot of dialogue written dialogue, letters, media releases, things like that. So, it's been a joy to be part of the organization. I work with amazing people, a lot of people who are not all retired.

Some are and were very successful in their own right. Very, very patriotic, very patriotic, God fearing and are very, very passionate about, passionate about invoking Article 5 of the US Constitution.

Mark Pukita: 00:03:53

Thank you.

I would say personally that the people I've met that are part of, who are part of the Convention of States movement have all been very polite, have all been very knowledgeable and like you said, they're a little older, like me, retired most of them because they're volunteers like you are. So let's get into the questioning. Okay, the first question.

Can you walk us through what a Convention of States is under Article 5 of the US Constitution and how it differs from a Constitutional Convention?

Diana Telles: 00:04:29

Sure. Well, they're very different. There's nothing in Article 5 that says Constitutional Convention.

A Constitutional Convention would imply that we're sitting down and writing a document, a constitution. We are not asking for that. We are looking to invoke the second clause of Article 5.

And if you don't mind, I, I feel like we don't give enough grounding if we don't read Article 5 as it is. So, if you don't mind, it's very, very short. It's like the shortest article on the whole Constitution. There are only seven articles.

And for Article 5 to be devoted to amendments is really says something. So, as we all know, the first clause of Article 5 allows for Congress to write amendments to the Constitution. They can write them.

And I'm going to read this now. Second and you can listen the first sentence, it's right there for Congress.

And in the second portion of it also talks about the states can get together in a convention and do the same. And from there on out the process is the same. It still has to go and be ratified by the states.

Any written amendment would have to be ratified by the states. It is as simple as that. So let me read this. I've tried to memorize Article 5, and I don't know, I think it's my age or something.

It's just not sticking So I opt to read it. So, I'll read it to you.

The Congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution or on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments which in either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three, four of the several states or by conventions in three fourths thereof. It's very wordy, I know, but everything that I read from, you know, long ago and any kind of legalese is wordy.

So what, what that is saying that is that 2/3 of the members of Congress would have to approve any amendment that they came up with. It pushes out to the states and then would have to be ratified by a super majority 3/4 of the states, which is 38 states.

Likewise, in a state convention. Well, to hold the state convention, we have to have 2/3 majority agreeing on a topic or agreeing to have the convention.

In our case, we're asking for a limited convention per our resolution. So, it does look like a resolution.

The way we get 34 states to say, yeah, we want to have this convention is to have them agree to our, our resolution. We are not the only Article 5 effort out there looking to have a convention. We have the most topics, but we are not the only one.

And there have been many, many other proposals across many, many years. We have a lot of traction. Probably have a, probably the most traction. Maybe we're second maybe to the.

I'm not even sure the balanced budget amendment might have a few more states, but we are working towards that. 34. We have 19 right now, 19 states who have agreed to have a convention on the three topics.

Our three topics are term limits for federal offices and for Congress, imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government and limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Those are our three topics. Very broad. A lot of amendments could fall under those.

There won't be time probably to write the number of amendments that could fall under that. But that's what we're asking. Those are the three things in tandem that need to be addressed in our federal government. And the states can do it.

They have the power to do it via Article 5 under the authority of Article 5, and that's what we're looking to do. It is a very, very different than holding a constitutional convention.

There is no language in what I just read you that suggests rewriting the Constitution. There isn't any. Okay. Some people will tell you there isn't enough language to even have a convention in here.

ution. It was originally only: 4000

There's enough in Article 5 to have passed 27 amendments through Congress. There's plenty in there, plenty of language in there to allow the states to do it as well.

But there's nothing in there that allows for any kind of process for a new Constitution to be dropped in there and somehow ratified. I don't even know what that would look like. How would that look?

I mean, states were used to getting an amendment dropped in and they look at these amendments and they vote on them individually. Our state legislatures now haven't seen one in a long time. But there is a process.

Mark Pukita: 00:09:24

That's no excuse to not be able to do it. I mean, we have the right to do it.

Diana Telles: 00:09:29

Right, Agreed. But can you envision if, if a state convention were held and a new constitution were like shoved in their faces, what are they going to do with that?

There's not even a, that's a, it's ridiculous.

Mark Pukita: 00:09:40

They would be incapable. They would be incapable.

Diana Telles: 00:09:43

Yeah. We do have opposition who will say that. And it's unfortunate because it's flat out false.

There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow for us to destroy the Constitution or edit. I, I saw this online the other day editing the verbiage of the Constitution. There's no editing the verbiage of the Constitution. It's an amendment.

It's tacked on to, to what, what's already there. And we don't want to change the Constitution per se. We are amending it with some new ideas. Okay. For sure.

With some new ideas like balancing the budget, which we aren't doing. Since we aren't doing it. We want to codify that.

Mark Pukita: 00:10:21

Right.

Diana Telles: 00:10:21

That's just one example.

Mark Pukita: 00:10:23

So what is this step by step process? If you could go down like a bullet point process for initiating and holding a Convention of States.

I think you, you, you, you did it in answering the first question.

But just very specifically, what are those steps that we have to go through to, in order for state application, you know, from state applications to ratification.

Diana Telles: 00:10:50

All right, so we do have grassroots convention of states, volunteers in almost every state, have house district in Ohio, across the country actually.

And those people work really hard to convince state legislators that this is the right thing to do and and educate them on it and educate the people around them and the citizens. Because this is a citizen effort. Once that's, that's always happening. Right. We're always working with legislators.

There's attrition and there's people that don't come, whatever. So, we need to educate all the time, and the legislators will eventually get the chance.

We, we filed our resolution at both houses of, of our state house. Right in the house and in the Senate. Those that resolutions have to pass both houses in order to be a past state.

Once we're a past state, Ohio ideally, hopefully we're state number 20, 21, 22. I'll take either joins the other 19 states and we sit, and we wait until other states join on until we get to 34.

Once we get to 34, we can hold a convention with state delegates that are, that are provided by the state. It could be state legislators. We forget to tell people that it could be legislators if they can find time to get there.

Ohio is a full time legislature, but they would choose delegates, probably three each depending on what the states decide. We have a piece of legislation that offers directives for that, and those people go to convention. It could last a very long time.

It might be three months long. It could be longer, I suppose it could be shorter. But it'd be a very, very public event because it's so unique.

And then they propose amendments in that convention at the direction of their state of their respective state. Not just all by themselves doing whatever they want. They've got to follow our, our resolution, our topics.

And their states are giving them directives on what they would like them to do in that convention. And then the amendments that come out of convention actually they have to. I, we don't always say this.

They have to be voted out of the convention one by one, by a simple, by a simple majority. So, if they don't make it out of convention, if they're not worthy or if their. Their people aren't comfortable with the verbiage they don't.

They don't leave convention.

But the ones that do push out to the states and the states one by one, not as a cluster or group, but one by one would, would have the opportunity to ratify any amendment that comes out of that convention.

Mark Pukita: 00:13:31

So and, and then, and then explain both houses.

Diana Telles: 00:13:36

Both. Yeah, both chambers of every state house. And there's a. It's a very tall order. That's why there's only 27 amendments. It's a very tall order.

Mark Pukita: 00:13:45

Does the governor have, does the governor have to sign off on it?

Diana Telles: 00:13:49

Not in Ohio. No, not anywhere that I know of.

Mark Pukita: 00:13:51

Good. So if it's both houses now, what happens after that?

Diana Telles: 00:13:56

Well, both houses pass the amendment in any state and they, they get 38 states to do that. That becomes the law of the land. It becomes a new amendment.

And, and as I'm told by the experts at convention of states, which are constitutional attorneys who have been in the Supreme Court and fought at the Supreme Court level, many, many times, we are told that amendments, I mean, tell me, what amendment isn't followed? I mean, people tell us all the time, well, they're not following the Constitution. Well, largely we are.

And what amendment, what, what amendment are we not following? Amendments are followed, especially ones that are brand new and novel and have just been passed.

Don't tell me if we pass term limits that they're not going to follow term limits. Of course they are. If we force a balanced budget, they're going to have to, they're going to have to do it.

And there's plenty of people, I think, I still think there's plenty of people in Washington who want to, that they just can't get enough cooperation. But if it's the law of the land, then they're going to have to do it.

So I'm satisfied that I'm not, not, I'm not as optimistic that we're going to get a lot of amendments passed, but if we got even one or two, three, four, it could make dramatic differences in the way things are operating in Washington, D.C. absolutely.

Mark Pukita: 00:15:14

Historically, Diana, how has Article 5 been used successfully and what lessons can we draw for a modern convention of states?

Diana Telles: 00:15:26

Well, since: 1789

What that tells me and should tell you is that any unpopular amendment is just not going to get anywhere. We know Ted Cruz has promoted term limits.

I don't know how much he's, he's pushed it or, or, or followed it, followed through on it, but he's at least, he's filed it everywhere, every new Congress.

Mark Pukita: 00:16:04

He does that.

Diana Telles: 00:16:04

Sure, but, and that, that might be to appease certain people. You know, I don't know how hard he works. Maybe he doesn't have time.

He probably doesn't have time, but it's not, it's not popular because Congress isn't in the, in the habit of taking away their own power. And, but it tells me that the system works. There have probably you could go back and look with that many amendments, that's 50 a year.

So that's up into modern times.

Up until last year, 50 amendments have been written in Congress and you don't even know about it because they're not, they never get anywhere because they know that they're not, that they don't, they either don't get to two thirds or it's pretty clear that, you know, they don't have public support. I guarantee you I did look a long time ago, I should know this. I guarantee there have been limitations on gun, on gun control.

You know, gun control amendments that have been written in Congress that get nowhere because they don't have anybody else, there's nobody to support it.

Mark Pukita: 00:17:06

So if you're not, if you're not reading the congressional record or you're not going to the website for the legislature and looking what's been introduced and then where, what the status is, and in most cases they just don't make it anywhere.

Diana Telles: 00:17:19

They get nowhere. That's a lot of amendments written over time and only 33 have ever been pushed out to the states and 27 ratified.

And that, so that, I mean, it tells you a few things. It's, it's, it's a safe process, but it's also a really, really hard thing to do. It's, it's so difficult. It's, it's, it's daunting, honestly.

But I'll tell you this too, that I think is important and I, I, I posted this on a social media post yesterday. There is an Article 5 effort that was launched by California.

They wrote a proposal, like a resolution like, like ours with some gun control measures in it. And it was article five, it was second clause of Article five promoted by like the state of California.

They wrote it in their legislature, I guess, and pushed it out there and tried to get some support. Guess how much support they got. And it's been years now sitting there. None, None. Not a single state has signed onto that.

So when people say that somehow something second Amendment or any amendment is, that's already, we're not going to touch the first 10 amendments. There's no possible way that this convention would do that because not a one of them falls under the purview of our topics, for starters.

But also Ohio has added a clause into its resolution that we would promise that there is no anything that would, that we would do to address the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights. And so Article 5, off the, I'm sorry, the Second Amendment is off the table. It's off the table.

But even if it slipped in, which it's not going to slip in. It won't get anywhere. Wouldn't get anywhere. It wouldn't even make it out.

It actually, that person would likely get thrown out of the convention based on our, our legal, the, the rules that we're all going to agree to.

Mark Pukita: 00:19:08

So what, what, what do you think are the most compelling arguments for why a convention of states is needed today, say, to address federal overreach or fiscal issues?

Diana Telles: 00:19:22

I mean, today my favorite topic would be that a few things, DOGE for one. I mean, that's, that's certainly wasn't what was on everybody's mind 10 years, 13 years ago when we launched this effort.

But if, if we want the efforts of DOGE to be made permanent, then it, it needs to be codified with the next presidential, you know, administration.

If they're not as committed to what is happening right now in the Trump administration with DOGE and this paring back of bureaucracy and wasteful spending, it will come right back. It will come right back. So there are amendments.

We could, we'll talk about that in a little while, but there are amendments that we can help keep that under control. And that's the number one thing. I think that's our message of the year, honestly. Because the other thing is two things can be true.

I don't like executive orders.

I can acknowledge that they've done some good things in kind of controlling some of the things that were going on in this country, but they're not permanent. The next president, we don't, we have no guarantees who's going to be in the next seat in the seat.

And if they're not committed to the same things, to fiscal restraint and our national debt. I mean, I don't know exactly what does it look like when we fall off a fiscal, the fiscal cliff.

I mean, our kids and grandkids, I have grandchildren, they're, they're going to pay for this. They already are. That's reason enough for me right now.

Mark Pukita: 00:20:53

Yeah. And I think too few, your point, I think, is that too few Americans understand that.

Let's say you did an executive order to form something like DOGE, and even if the Congress passed it as a permanent agency in law, that that law could easily be overturned the next term.

For example, if people who didn't like DOGE got into power and could get a majority if it's in the Constitution, to get it out of the Constitution, you have to go through this same onerous process that you've just discussed to get it out.

So that's why I'm assuming that's why folks supportive of the convention of states want to have these issues in the Constitution, whether it be term limits, whether it be balanced budget, whether, whether it be power allocation or things like that. Is that correct?

Diana Telles: 00:22:04

Yeah. And, and if Congress were going to fix that, they could write legislation.

So I, I would argue that there's two parts of what we're trying to do with our resolution. It's to restore parts of the Constitution that have been sort of reinterpreted and secondly to add some new things.

And if Congress has proven that they're not going to do it, and we can, by way of this convention, do what Congress won't do. So they've had every opportunity to find a way to balance the budget. They've. They've allowed bureaucracy. They've given up their power to bureaucrats.

They've given it up, and we want to take that back. Let me talk about the restoration of the Constitution because it's a good time for that. So I brought with me today the annotated Constitution.

This is everybody. Lots of people carry around that pocket Constitution. My kid has one. I know one of my legislators I've talked to many times has one. I have one.

But this, this giant annotated constitution, which is 2,000 pages, is an example of what has been done to the Constitution by way of Supreme Court decisions and interpretations. So it's not the same Constitution. It is definitely being touched and really amended kind of through the courts.

But the restoration that I'd like to focus on today, and I really do want people to hear this because it's a. There are three things, in my opinion, and I come by it by doing a lot of reading and a lot of listening.

The commerce clause and general welfare clauses have been reinterpreted in that Constitution, and it has allowed spending by the federal government. It's a pathway for, for any kind of spending the federal government wants, regardless of what the original Constitution had intended.

The original Constitution said anything that the states could do. The. The federal government couldn't. They had enumerated powers and there weren't very many of them, really. And now they spend on anything they want.

And that's how we got where we are. There's, there's a couple other items, too, that got us where we are.

I think income tax, 16th amendment, and I'd like to see that capped at, I don't know, 15% or something, but certainly put some sort of cap on it because we could really change the way we spend.

And the federal Government wouldn't be able to hold the states hostage really for monies that really should have stayed in the state in the first place. And then the third item would be the annotated Constitution and the reinterpretation, the income tax and the, the 17th Amendment.

And those three things changed the way government was done and just hugely. 17th Amendment changed the way the senator, US Senate was elected. Instead of the state legislatures putting their senator in their seat, it.

I, gosh, I want to say it was: 1911

so that's how you get things like the health care law passed, where that was a really hard, heavy lift for the state.

Some of them couldn't afford it, pushed back against it, but their senators voted for it because the senators were doing their own thing and working on their own, on their own accord.

But in reality, the states should have been attached to those senators in a way where legislation that doesn't suit the state should never, should never have been allowed. So those three things really changed the landscape of this country. In my research and in what I've been hearing, I blame those three things.

Now we can't, I don't think we can touch the 17th Amendment in this convention. Maybe another convention with under different topics, but there's no topic that really would allow that to be, you know, withdrawn.

But we can reinterpret the commerce and general welfare clauses and like reword them to match a little more closely to what the founders intended. We could do that in this convention.

Mark Pukita: 00:26:35

That we want because of the, because of the balanced budget aspect of it, because fiscal restraint.

Diana Telles: 00:26:41

It's overreach. It's overreach, bigly, for sure. It's both. It's actually both.

It, it falls under both because it, it has caused fiscal irresponsibility and it's overreach. They, they're, they're spending on things that the federal government is not allowed to spend on. Absolutely fits under both.

Mark Pukita: 00:26:58

Got it. Critics often warn about a runaway convention where the scope spirals out of control. How realistic is that risk in your opinion?

And what safeguards exist to prevent it?

Diana Telles: 00:27:13

I don't see it as a risk at all. I've never bought into that.

I think that is scare tactics that were introduced by progressives in the 50s, 60s, 70s that just never went away and have imparted fear. And it does make me sad that people actually think that there is a chance of that.

I, I have no reason to believe that our delegates or commissioners would behave anything but appropriately. I, I, do we ever, I mean, do you ever see that, do you ever hear of, of a convention or a meeting or.

I've rarely heard of any, any state house or federal convention or meeting that went awry. And the result was some, you know, the opposite of what was intended. I mean, it doesn't really make any sense to me.

It's based on the premise that our Founders allowed their Constitutional Convention to do something that it wasn't allowed to do.

And we know that is not true, that our Founders did act according to what their state legislatures had allowed them to do and that they acted in good faith. And to say that they didn't is kind of disgusting because these are our Founders.

They've come up with an amazing Constitution that has served us very, very well. And we do want to protect it, we want to restore it.

But to suggest that they would be, you know, this all out anarchy or something makes no sense to me at all. If, if somebody is affected, and I'm sad for that, if they're affected by the notion that our Founders acted.

And if our founders couldn't get it right under George Washington, no less, the most trusted honest leader of the age, I sincerely doubt he would have allowed these states to step out of what they were, what they were allowed to do. Apparently Congress had issued at the time verbiage that suggested they were just going to work on the Articles of Confederation.

And in the end they ended up writing a constitution. But Congress had no authority at that time.

. The issue of a runaway from: 1789

And it's in the Harvard, Harvard Journal of Law, a peer reviewed article.

And I would strongly recommend that anybody who is concerned that, that we can't handle something and that their founders didn't do it right either, that you should be reading that and please do that dive and take a look at that.

Mark Pukita: 00:30:20

We'll make sure that a link to that article is put in the Show Notes for this. So, so we can make it easy for people to get, you know, the article,

Diana Telles: 00:30:26

This, the invocation of Article 5 and what it can do is too important to allow like doomsday language. And we're going to blow up the Constitution and it's going to run away. That's not fair. That is not fair to what we're trying to do.

And this is too important. It's too important for that. I actually equate what's going on with Article 5 and how amazing and how what a powerful tool it can be.

I equate it to the folks who lobby against like nuclear energy. They'll, you know, they. We know it's clean energy. We know it's safe. The, the, the even, even lower emissions disposal. Yeah, it's cleaner.

The disposal of any waste is, is, has been managed. It's very manageable and it's far cleaner. And they disallow it because of. I don't know why. Because fear. They want their way. I don't know why.

Mark Pukita: 00:31:20

Ideology.

Diana Telles: 00:31:21

Similarly, I, the forest, Forest management, you know, I, I know a gentleman who fights forest fires in Idaho. If they could manage it the way they need to manage it, they would have far fewer fires to be safer for everybody and better for the environment.

They disallow it and it's the same kind of thing. So you throw out something fearful at people on a. And it's a hard concept to understand.

Then, then you've lost, potentially lost or slowing down for sure. A tool that could be just really, really beneficial to the country.

Mark Pukita: 00:32:00

I almost feel like this was a tool that the founding fathers put in knowing that we were going to run into situations like wind right now and they wanted to give the people a big hammer. To go after these problems and to just dismiss them with hyperbole is problematic. Let's.

I'm going to skip a question because you really talked about balancing the power between the federal government, the state government. What role do state legislatures play and the legislators in shaping the agenda for a convention?

And how much influence do citizens have in that process?

Diana Telles: 00:32:39

I mean, I feel influential just being here.

So, anybody could join this effort now in trying to invoke Article 5 and learn about it and, and, and listen to people who are trying to, to teach you. Because when this convention gets here, we do need people to understand it and not be fearful.

But obviously the legislatures and the legislators by agreeing to the topics are, are playing a role in, in, in what, what's going on there. I mean they're agreeing to the three pillars of our, of this resolution. But also, there is an what, what we're suggesting the states do.

We do have a second piece of legislation. Our resolution is one thing. It's only four pages. We can drop that, leave that with you Mark, so that people can read the resolution. Resolution.

They all match, mostly the states. There's a little bit of unique verbiage in each, each state, but the, the functional language of the resolution is the same in all states.

They need to match. The 34 states need to match. So.

But we have a second piece of legislation that is a faithful commissioner legislation that gives the states an opportunity to kind of see what their, what their role actually is. And they can edit that if they want because it's their rules for these commissioners.

It can be their, their punishment if they fall out of line and they don't do what they're supposed to do.

You know, you'll be brought home, and we'll send somebody in your stead if you do this, if you, if you even bring up any other topic outside of the three things but that there would be an advisory committee for these legislators.

I'm sorry, for the legislature, like Ohio legislature, for example, they passed the resolution, they passed this faithful commissioner legislation and in there they, they've created an advisory committee that really would need to be bipartisan. We can't just put push out conservative things and expect that they're going to go all the way to the, the states in the end.

And these amendments that have been largely written by all conservative people, it has to be a bipartisan effort. So, they would have to populate an advisory committee.

And those advisors will be directing the commissioners to act and telling them how they're expected to act. Much like what this being before the 17th amendment, the way the legislature should have been, should still be directing senators.

So, they have a large role to play in it.

Mark Pukita: 00:35:16

Yeah. And citizens have been giving testimony both in support of and in opposition to this legislation as well.

So what many, I think Ohioans don't understand is that many people have testified, including myself, in front of the committees or committee that is responsible for dealing with this legislation. So. And anybody watching needs to understand that you can go give proponent or opponent testimony at any time you want.

You cannot be excluded from doing that. So. And that can be. You could see this past testimony on the Ohio Channel. I think we'll drop links to these committee meetings.

So people if they want, in the Show Notes so people, if they want, can go, can go see them moving on. Are there specific amendments you think the convention of states should prioritize like term limits or balance or the balanced budget requirement.

In other words, if this had to be skinny down, I would say this. If this had to be skinny down to one topic, what would that topic be?

Diana Telles: 00:36:29

Be skinny down to one topic. Wow. My, my first answer to that would be the one that's most likely to pass 38 states would be what I would say.

Mark Pukita: 00:36:40

And what do you think that is?

Diana Telles: 00:36:42

That. What's that?

Mark Pukita: 00:36:44

What do you think that is? Term limits has like 85% support or something like that with citizen support.

Diana Telles: 00:36:54

It does not really have legislative support. And I'd like to get back to that. But let me back up a minute because before I go.

And I think there is something about the prior question that you skipped that was actually one of my favorites. So, you had originally given me a question. How do I see convention of states balancing the power between the federal government and the states?

And I want to tell you the term federalism and cover that because it is the reason that I'm here, and I've heard my boss say it too, that federalism, it's not just about any one amendment, but that federalism is. Describes that balance of power between the states and the federal government. And right now, it's out of balance.

The federal government has too much power. They hold money overheads. It should never have looked like that.

The states created the federal government to be diplomatic, you know, diplomacy, defense and trade, and very, very little else. Okay, so now we're backward. Okay. And federalism.

Any one of our amendments, any one of the amendments you can envision under our three topics would promote federalism.

And what federalism looks like is like a, a creating more power in the states and giving the states more power and allowing them to be sovereign in their own right. So. So the federal government kind of is over here and they're decentralized somewhat.

Not as much as I would like, probably, but in some fashion, we're decentralizing the federal government and giving the states sovereign their sovereignty back where it's what they should have had in the beginning. The founders wanted that. That was.

They didn't go here to lose that North Carolina did not want to lose, you know, or Virginia did not want to lose their sovereignty that none of them wanted to lose sovereignty, right? So, any one of our amendments can promote federalism and then it eliminates pork barrel spending and a lot of other ridiculous spending that you see.

Furthermore, if you can envision like this is the way we were so bipolar, right? We're so partisan and we're so different now this is the way we can survive that. California can still be California. Let them do their thing.

I don't agree with it, but Florida can be that be Florida, but without the federal government imparting its power over it. And furthermore, it, it's, it's safer for the states. That. No idea like a federal ideology. Whether it's like compare Joe Biden to Donald Trump.

Very different ideologies, very different ways of doing things and visions for government. Right. Very different.

If you can alleviate their effect on the states, then the states can be sovereign, and they'd be less affected by those extreme ideologies. Extreme from the far right. Extreme from the far left.

Mark Pukita: 00:39:37

Yeah. I like to use the example of healthcare with the ACA. The, it should be the UCA. The Unaffordable Care Act.

Diana Telles: 00:39:47

Yeah.

Mark Pukita: 00:39:47

Under a, under a true federalist kind of process or structure, we can have 50 different health care systems. If California wants completely socialized medicine, so be it. If Ohio wants something different, so be it.

And here's what happens in situations like that, just like it does in companies competing. There will be reports and there will be consultants who will look at those 50 programs and rank them best to worst.

And then citizens can go to their legislature and say, hey, we'd like to be a little bit more like Nebraska because it seems to be working better there. And we allow the citizens to make that decision of how they should be governed and how they should be cared for as opposed to the federal government.

Because we all know that nothing happens in D.C. without money flowing into someone's pocket. I mean, it's just, it's impossible to, to, to ignore.

And so wouldn't it be great to have 50 incubators for the best idea? You come up with the best one and everybody embraces it. That's what would happen.

Diana Telles: 00:41:04

They embrace it. Or, or I move and I say, people. How many people flooded Florida during COVID and said, I like how they're doing things. I'm sick of it over here?

Mark Pukita: 00:41:12

Bingo. There's. That's a great example.

Diana Telles: 00:41:14

Not that I want to move, but like, if that's how this has to look and we're going to be so polarized, then it is what it is. So that's how we survive.

I worried so much about the country being so polarized, and I came to the realization, and that's what federalism says to me is we're, we're our own experiments. Right. Our own states are their own experiments. And, and we have the freedom to go where we want and, and to Put pressure on our state.

Mark Pukita: 00:41:39

So, so talking about that, that bifurcation, that, that binary yes or no, black or white, liberal, conservative kind of division we've got going on, how do political divisions, let's say red states versus blue states, affect the likelihood of getting 34 states to agree on calling a convention?

Diana Telles: 00:41:59

I mean, it, it, it's, it affects us a lot. It affects us a lot.

It is a bit of a worry to me because when you say we're going to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and, you know, address wasteful spending, it, it feels like a conservative effort that does feel like an ideology that falls under, like a Republican, you know, the Republican Party platform.

But you'd be surprised how many people I just did a podcast with some gentlemen from Illinois and they say to me that when we approach, most of them are Democrats in their legislature. And when they approach them, you'd be surprised how much like you and I, that they are Ohio's first. One of our first resolutions.

I have it written down here.: 2015

e House for our resolution in: 2015

The people are, Mark, but the, the, oh, I know that legislators are not.

Mark Pukita: 00:43:18

I had a Republican legislator.

Diana Telles: 00:43:19

There is, there is a bridge to be, to be, you know, built there. And I had a new need to get the blue on board.

Mark Pukita: 00:43:26

I had a Republican legislator tell me on the phone that his mind is starting to be changed about term limits in Ohio. And if, if many people don't know we've got this musical chair. Term limits. You, you serve for eight years in either body.

You can sit out one term and go back. You can go to the others.

Diana Telles: 00:43:49

And I thought term limit light.

Mark Pukita: 00:43:51

Yeah, he, yeah, term limit light. But, but, but he's saying that because he has become intoxicated with his position.

And I said to him, you know, if you think that Ohio, after getting the, the, the lukewarm kind of light term limits we have, are going to go back on the argument that you're just getting to understand how the system works after two or three terms, I think you got a problem, my friend.

Because the problem is not that this is hard to understand, it's that you folks allow it to become complicated with nonsense that needs to be put out of the way. We need less experience in my opinion, in the legislature than more.

But you know, these are the kind of things that, that, you know, it's very interesting to look at how Democrats, Republicans, Reds, blues look at, at these kind of topics. Taking that to the next step. If a convention proposes amendments, what's the biggest hurdle in getting 38 states to ratify them?

Diana Telles: 00:45:06

Well, let me back up if you don't mind. I'd like to talk about my theory on term limits. That's okay. Or unless you're worried about time.

But I do have a term limit, a thought on term limits and I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

So, because we have legislators who talk about, you know, pushing back a little bit on, turn on, on that issue, some of them that might even be not signing on to our resolution because of it. Now Ohio doesn't have to vote for it in the end and it may not pass if people don't, if legislatures don't like it, it won't pass anyway.

But my theory on this is that what the, the terms in the house, in the U.S. house and the Senate, on average the average legislator stays in Washington D.C. somewhere between nine and 11 years.

When I first read that, I thought I'd been with COS a while and I thought well, that's not really all that long. What are we worried about if it's not that long? So, the average legislator in the house is like nine years. The average senator stays about 11.

That's just averages and that doesn't sound so nefarious. It's, it's the, so it's the career politicians that we want to affect.

So out of one of our, we have simulated conventions and out of one of those conventions I saw a, a term limit amendment that had been passed out of the con. This, this simulated convention that suggested a 24 year term limit. And that sounds a little ridiculous. That's an awful long time.

Mark Pukita: 00:46:36

However, that's in total, total, total between.

Diana Telles: 00:46:40

The House multiples of six. Right, but. And it's. Yeah, it would be, it would be. They could move from either chamber, but total of 24 years in Washington D.C. you're out.

And that's still, still kind of silly. It's an awful long time. It isn't what the founders envision, but we are looking to like actually pass an amendment.

So we would have to acknowledge that if the legislatures aren't that excited about term limits, if you go to 24, it might look a little more attractive to them and A little less concerning to them than 12 years. 12 years would be very, very short, honestly, if you consider the average. Right. Actually, considering the average, it's not that short.

But, but it would be more, more of a concern, I think, to the state legislatures to go with 12 years than 24. So 24 still allows us what it really allows us to do. We don't need to worry about the average legislator. They're only staying nine to 11 years.

We're worried about the career politicians who dig their heels in so hard and make so much money that they can't be moved or wheeling them into the senate, you know, like weekend at bernie's. Okay. They don't know when to leave. And they're powerful and you know their names. Right? I don't even know the name of all the Ohio legis, US Representatives.

Mark Pukita: 00:47:55

And I can help you with that.

Diana Telles: 00:47:57

But you.

Mark Pukita: 00:47:58

Because most of them stink. So we're all, we're all over that.

Diana Telles: 00:48:01

I don't even doubt that, sadly. But, you know.

Mark Pukita: 00:48:05

I know you're focused on convention of states, so that's.

Diana Telles: 00:48:07

Yeah, I am, I am. And I used to be more, a little more federally focused, honestly, and I'm less so now. But we know names like, like Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi.

We know those names. Those people have been around forever because they're super powerful. Like, that's why we know who they are. Like the average household.

It's a household name because they're so powerful and they've been there so long. So a long term limit, 24 years could address those, those long term. And the rest of them. Okay, you like Jim Jordan. I get it. I do too.

So he gets to stay 24 years. That's, that's pretty decent. So I like that possibility. We could also send more than one amendment to.

It might be a tall order to write three amendments, but have three different terms for, for a term limit and see what passes these legislatures.

Mark Pukita: 00:48:52

Right.

Diana Telles: 00:48:52

And just see, I don't know why we couldn't write multiple ones. So that's my take on term limits.

Mark Pukita: 00:48:58

And so what's, what's the hurdle to getting this thing past 38 states?

Diana Telles: 00:49:04

The hurdle to getting the past 38. I mean, it would be the bipartisan nature of any of these, of these amendments. But ideally, we've engaged red and blue.

We are a nonpartisan organization and the effort is nonpartisan.

And if we've engaged the right people from all these states, all states get invited, not just the ones, you know, we reach 34 states, the whole country gets Invited. So everybody has representation, the. The blue and the red. And it's going to need to be, to feel bipartisan. For sure. That's going to be the hurdle.

Mark Pukita: 00:49:44

Right?

Diana Telles: 00:49:45

Yeah, it's a lot.

Mark Pukita: 00:49:46

What in, in the convention, the states get one vote. Correct. As they're deciding on things. So one state may decide to send three people as their representatives.

Are they call commissioners in our legislation. Okay.

Diana Telles: 00:50:04

Yeah, we would call them commissioners.

Mark Pukita: 00:50:05

Yeah. And another could send 50. But they still only get one vote, right?

Diana Telles: 00:50:11

Correct. And you'd want an odd number. So 51.

Mark Pukita: 00:50:14

41. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. That shows you how inexperienced I am in politics.

Diana Telles: 00:50:19

No, that's okay.

But I think there was an even number in one of the states and they, they changed it because they're, they had passed a legislation on that and they went to, you know, odd number. But yes, they.50 would be an awful lot to work with.

I think our recommendation in Ohio, or in general, just for COS, generally speaking, would be three. But any state could really decide. Heck, if they want to do an even number, they could do that too. But that would make things a little awkward.

Mark Pukita: 00:50:47

Yeah. What do you think the timeline is on something like this? Could we see results in a decade or maybe our lifetimes? Or is it a longer haul than that?

Diana Telles: 00:50:57

It's a good question. I did ponder that when I read your question last night. We've been at it 13 years and I will tell you this.

Mike Ferris, our founder, our co founder, had worked on legislation that went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep homeschooling legal in all 50 states, and it took him 20 years. So when I hear things like that, he didn't lose heart in that effort and he's not losing heart in this one.

And as long as he hasn't lost heart and he is the expert, I'm not.

He's the constitutional expert who has his, his litigated Article 5 issues in the Supreme Court level and other issues at the Supreme Court level, too. I trust him.

And if he's hanging in there and, and isn't giving up and knows it takes time and knows that you just stay the course, then I'm, I'm good with that. I'd love to see it happen faster.

I, I had one person tell me, he said to me, I, I was, you know, I, I must have been having a, a down moment or I said, oh, it's taking so long. And he said, yeah, but it could happen all at once. You know, something could trigger some messaging, something could trigger.

And all of a sudden, the rest of the states get on board and we do this. So one never knows. One never knows. I don't know what that would look like. That's.

Mark Pukita: 00:52:12

That's called ira- ...irrational exuberance or, or, irrational positivity.

Diana Telles: 00:52:20

It might be a little irrational, but I kind of liked it. I kind of liked it as well. Yeah.

Mark Pukita: 00:52:26

I think if your motivations are pure and you, you, you're trying to do the right thing, whether it's someone, a proponent for this or an opponent for this, as long as you've got legitimate concerns and you're expressing them in a civil manner, I think that that's a good process. Diana, are there any examples from other countries of systems that they use that are kind of like this, that can show how this kind of process can.

Diana Telles: 00:52:56

Succeed or fail, you know, from other countries? I talked to my boss about this question, and she said, we both agreed there is no other country that has a constitution anything like ours, which is.

Makes us. That's why we're so special. We are special here, and we are so lucky. And I don't know of one.

The best I could do, which is sort of a half a partial answer, it's not a great answer, is that there are conventions all the time that go the way they're supposed to and they don't go off the rails. And I've looked up several. And they happen all the time and the whole world's involved and they get the job done.

But I don't know of another country that. That allows. Like, this is a we. You know, the citizens kind of have a say in this. I'm a. I'm just a citizen. I'm not elected.

And I can be influential in, in. In this. And heck, if I wanted to run for office, I could. But I'm pretty happy doing what I'm doing here.

And I do feel like I am getting my voice heard, for sure. I'm inserting it where I need to insert it. We walk around the state house, talk to legislators. What other country do they do that? I don't, I don't.

I can't think of one.

Mark Pukita: 00:54:08

Yeah, you'll hear. You will hear people talk about the Canadian constitution or whatever. They are not the same as ours. You've made a good point there.

And, and they do not give citizens the same amount and the sovereign states the same amount of power. It's more of a, you know, national, federal government kind of system and makes us very, very unique. And I think we need.

I personally believe we need to Stay that way. How, how do you respond to skeptics who say Congress or the courts can already fix this problem or these problems without a convention?

And I think we've, we've, we've talked about it or hit on this a lot during this conversation. But you know, what do you, what do you say to them when they say this can be fixed by typical legislation or executive orders or things like that?

Diana Telles: 00:55:01

You know, it can be, except that they're not doing it and the executive orders are temporary and efforts of doge are temporary, frankly. And they're not going to be solidified or, or come to fruition at all unless there is some legislation. And are they going to do it?

They have proven time, time again that they, they don't do it. I mean we are. What is the debt clock right now? Is it at, I don't know, 37, 36, 37 trillion.

Mark Pukita: 00:55:27

I mean it was 36 last time I looked. It's probably 37 now.

Diana Telles: 00:55:30

It's so bad. I know and I hate to look and it's, it's so aggravating. But they can fix certain things. They're just not doing it.

And again, I'll tell you, this allows us to do the things that Congress won't do, which is exactly why George Mason asked to have it added into the Constitution and it was voted unanimously into the Constitution for this moment in history.

Mark Pukita: 00:55:51

That's a very important point that many people probably do not know about. This was universally embraced by everybody who was writing the Constitution that it was a requirement.

And, and there, I don't believe there were that many. There was a lot of discussion about a lot of other parts of the Constitution. This one was a pretty.

No, it seems like this one was a pretty no brainer.

Diana Telles: 00:56:19

Yeah, like why didn't we think of that?

Of course they need a way around Congress and they knew because they'd read about other civilizations, they knew a lot, they were so educated and they knew that it was in the nature of government to grow and this gave the states the opportunity and they would have been worried about that. Right. Because they were creating a federal government and they would have all been very nervous about.

Mark Pukita: 00:56:40

Yeah, that didn't exist prior.

Diana Telles: 00:56:41

Right, right. It would have been very, very.

Oh my goodness, like think about Massachusetts and their footprint in, in the, in the, as, as one of the state early states and they want to give up some, any sovereignty to some federal bureaucracy or something. I don't think so.

So yeah, they definitely would have, they did not argue, as I understand it at all about adding the second clause of Article 5 to the Constitution. Furthermore, I want to say this.

One of our founders was involved in the Tea Party and he had said one of the reasons he shifted over to this effort is because he said we worked really hard to get certain people elected. And you know, like, you know, some of the people you even mentioned in Ohio, you know, maybe they're not, I, I don't know who you're talking about.

And, and, but maybe their character is solid, but they get up there and the system is so broken that they electing the right people isn't working. So apparently the Tea Party had made a lot of headway in getting people elected and nothing changed. So we can affect real change by doing this.

And I mean, what else do we have? I mean, what else do we have? The lack of action is proof enough for me. Let's do this.

Mark Pukita: 00:57:56

I agree.

Diana Telles: 00:57:57

They're never going to vote to reduce their own power. Doge is going to need a little push.

Commission during, In I think: 1984

Not quite the same. They weren't digging deep into the systems I don't think, but they were looking for, for waste and making recommendations.

It largely failed because they, they were able to grab some of that money back or save it by executive order. But Congress failed to act. I think Congress was not on Ronald Reagan's side at that time. It didn't happen.

So if we want to really make things happen, you know, there is an amendment and we didn't talk too much about amendments. That's almost a show all itself, honestly, Mark. But one of the amendments there is one that it's like a four step plan.

It's, you know, it's not our duty to throw an amendment out there at a convention. They need to be written in convention.

But we obviously have ideas on what we would like those to look like and what could really work and what we need.

And we do need one and I do think this one could pass especially because people are focused on Doge and understanding a little bit more about what's going on there.

But it's a paring back of the bureaucracy by way of, you know, sunsetting these bureaucracies and having them approach, you know, there's a committee and they've got to go to the committee every 2, 3, 4 years, whatever they, whatever term it is. And they have to be sort of, you know, blessed to move on. And if they aren't doing their job, they're done.

Mark Pukita: 00:59:37

And they need to be recertified.

Diana Telles: 00:59:39

Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's well put, a recertification. And if they're not pulling their weight, then they have to go. And there is no system for that right now.

Well, we put it in the Constitution. They'll have to do it. And at least if, you know, we can, we can.

And if they don't do it, we have to pressure them and say, we've got an amendment here, it's your duty.

Mark Pukita: 01:00:00

So, yeah, so we're coming up on an hour and I wanted to try to keep this about an hour, even though I didn't tell you that.

Diana Telles: 01:00:08

I mean, I could do this all day.

Mark Pukita: 01:00:11

Okay, so final question, and this is a good one, I think. What's the one thing you wish more people understood about a convention of states to ease their fears or spark their interest?

Diana Telles: 01:00:24

The one simple thing. This is just a meeting or asking for a meeting. It happens to be on certain topics as we've discussed, but it is just a meeting.

Amendments can be proposed. And I read Article 5. They can be proposed. They cannot.

Nothing else happens to them unless they get voted out of that meeting and they get offered up to the states. That's what I wish people understood. And there is a lot of negativity out there. We have opposition. There's a lot of hyperbole, there's a lot of fear.

And I do wish people understood that. That's all it is per article 5. That's what it is. The doomsday fairy tales do not hold water.

And this Article 5, it's operating within the framework of the Constitution, not outside of it. It's not revolutionary. It's within the framework. And there's no language that does anything but allow us to propose in a convention. That's it.

That's it. Either they write them in Congress somewhere in D.C.

in some room on their own, whatever that looks like, or we set up as a, a state convention with people that the legislators deem worthy and, and we write some amendments. And I don't see this, I don't see the, the, the danger in that. There's no danger in that. How is that dangerous?

I trust the state, state folks more than I would Washington, D.C. i do. Worth $37 trillion in debt, like the fiscal cliff is not a pleasant place to be. It is not a good thing.

We are in trouble and there's a lot of reasons why, but we need to, we, we need to take steps to, to address it. And Article 5 Convention of the States can do that.

Mark Pukita: 01:02:13

Great. So, Diana, thank you so much for doing this. Thank you for the preparation that I know you put into it. Thank you for, for being with me today.

We will put all the references that you've talked about in our show notes so people can do as much or as little homework on the topic that they want to do. I'm going to encourage people to do a lot of research on the topic. I'm also going to make the offer here kind of on the air.

For someone who opposes the convention of States who is willing to do a civil, respectful kind of conversation just like this with me, I, I would ask them to put their hand up. I, I would like to find someone to do that and then we can go back and forth with some rebuttals if you will.

But kind of make it a control debate because I'm going to control it. There's been some vitriol, there's been some hyperbole. We want to try to take that out of this and just make it a battle of ideas.

And may the best ideas win. So thank you, Diana, and thank you for watching.

Diana Telles: 01:03:24

Thanks, Mark. Appreciate being here.

Mark Pukita: 01:03:26

This video is brought to you by the Grassroots Freedom Initiative, or GFI for short. If you're not already on our email and text lists, please be sure to join our network of thousands of Ohioans.

ge or text the letters GFI to: 66866

And please be sure to find and follow us on YouTube and Rumble. Subscribe. Hit the notification bell and give us a Like to be made aware when we post new content. Thanks for watching.

Please remember to stay informed and get engaged.