Philip Blumel: But what if? What if? Hi, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the Term Limits Movement. This is episode 270, published on September 8th, 2025.
Stacey Selleck: Your sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: As you know, 12 states so far have passed the resolution to call for an amendment proposing convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, limited to the subject of congressional term limits. Three states passed the resolution so far in 2025, South Dakota, South Carolina, Indiana, and three states passed it last year. The momentum is increasing. When 34 states have made such a call, the Constitution is clear. A convention must be held. And if that occurred, states would send delegates, hammer out an amendment, or not, and send it back to the states for ratification, just like any other constitutional amendment. Now per the Constitution, the convention itself is only to propose amendments. It cannot create, alter, or abolish any law. Even as we move closer to that 34-state threshold, history suggests that no such convention will be held. When it looks like enough states are going to make the convention call, Congress will surely act. It always has. And why? Because the threat of a convention, amongst other pressures, have traditionally forced Congress to act. This is particularly true with the issue of term limits, which affects the lives and livelihoods of Congress members directly. Do Congress members want to write the term limits law, or permit state legislators itching to run for Congress to write it?
Philip Blumel: That question answers itself. Yeah, but what if? What if Congress doesn’t act and a convention is called? Well, that would be exciting. It’d be unprecedented. It would surely engage the public’s interest like nothing else. What a show. And I think we could reasonably expect a tougher term limits law than what we’d get from Congress. In fact, I’d bet on it. And that’s why Congress will never let it happen. They would want to ensure the amendment would include grandfathering at least. Yeah, but what if? Some people ask this question out of concern about the convention process. Might the convention process be dangerous? Now, often this is suggested by politicians who don’t want to publicly oppose term limits, so they pretend to be defenders of the Constitution, which surely sells better to their constituents. The alleged dangers of the convention process are also trumpeted by conspiracy-oriented groups who use such fears to raise money and, of course, curry favor with said politicians. But I’ve also heard this concern from real people as well, those with a genuine concern but are just not very familiar with the Article V convention process. So, for them, let’s take a deep dive this week and review the many safeguards, the belts and suspenders and the additional belts and suspenders, that make the process safe.
Philip Blumel: First and foremost, I want to repeat that, per the Constitution, the convention itself is only to propose amendments. It cannot create, alter, or abolish any law. It has no actual power. It is a deliberative process and nothing but. It can offer an amendment to the states to consider, but, you know, it might not even do that. If the delegates from the states can’t come to an agreement, the convention can decline to propose an amendment at all. In the case of a limited and simple issue like term limits, I think that’s vanishingly unlikely. But hey, this is a discussion about what ifs. Now, in the case of the term limits resolution, all 12 states who have so far passed the convention application, that’s the official term, have limited the scope of the convention subject to the issue of congressional term limits. As a result, delegates would be sent from the states with instructions in line with the circumscribed purpose of the convention. Yeah, but what if? What if? What if a rogue delegate stands up at convention and suggests an amendment on a different topic? This grandstander, I don’t know, wants to ban guns or ban abortion or ban cars or permit life terms for the president and whatever.
Philip Blumel: Well, just like in any other proceeding, the rogue would have to get a majority of delegates, all of whom were chosen and given instructions from their states in light of the stated convention goal, to approve the debate on the new issue. Now, that’s unlikely, but, theoretically possible. But it would also be illegal in at least 14 states. That’s right. So far, 14 states have enacted some version of a faithful delegate law that provides consequences for delegates who disregard their state’s instructions at an Article V convention or any other convention of the states. These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Now, keep in mind, even if the rogue delegate or delegates were persuasive and willing to face the legal consequences, they could only succeed in proposing an amendment that would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states to become part of the Constitution. That is 38 states, red, blue, and purple. They hold the sole power to amend the Constitution, not a handful of rogue delegates at a convention. I should mention that states see the potential success of the Tournament’s Convention movement, and more states are considering these faithful delegate laws just in case.
Philip Blumel: Just for one example, in South Carolina, the Faithful Constitutional Convention Commissioner Act, H4625, was introduced last year and it outlines serious consequences for delegates who overstep their authority. It makes exceeding a commission a felony, punishable by fines up to $1,000 and one year in prison. And the bill also criminalizes the act of obstructing or intimidating a commissioner. And other states considering faithful delegate laws right now include Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire. Now, I have to be honest, I do not believe these faithful delegate laws are necessary. Given the limited power of the convention and the required ratification by 38 states, nonetheless, if they make concerned citizens more comfortable with this constitutional process, I certainly don’t object to them. This is belt and suspenders upon the other two pairs of belts and suspenders. Let’s continue our trek down the what-if road after taking this short detour. Brian Hamilton is the entrepreneur who founded the fintech firm SageWorks, now called Abrigo. He’s the founder of the Brian Hamilton Foundation and Inmates to Entrepreneurs. Hamilton had a noteworthy opinion piece in the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill in August on our favorite subject. Let’s hear it.
Brian Hamilton: Political vampires are draining the country. Term limits are the answer. By Brian Hamilton, opinion contributor. In American politics today, our collective energy is being drained at an alarming rate. The culprits? The vampires. Not the tasty ones like Count Chocula. Rather, the blood-sucking ones like way too many members of our current Congress. A vampire, by my definition, is someone who takes more energy than he gives. In the workplace, where they are also a problem, I have learned to spot vampires quickly and remove them. In politics, they are just as easy to identify but far harder to root out, and their damage is far greater. Vampires in government come in various forms. Many are not believers in the vision of a better country. They are content to tinker at the edges and do whatever they must to keep their jobs. They will go whichever way the wind blows, as long as it carries them to another term in office. Others excel at shooting down big plans and bold ideas, telling us why things cannot or should not be done without offering meaningful solutions of their own. Some are slow-moving and low on energy and creativity. Others have boundless energy but spend it on distractions like launching and defending investigations, fighting over wedge issues that affect few Americans, and chasing political theater rather than measurable progress.
Brian Hamilton: Some are masters of endless debate, chewing over the same issues long past the point of usefulness, mistaking motion for progress. They gossip. They maneuver. They focus more on partisan intrigue than on real-world problem-solving. And perhaps worst of all, they are not in a rush. They behave as if time is an endless circle. Here is the test. After a leader speaks, do you feel inspired and ready to act, or do you feel drained and disillusioned? If it is the latter, you have just encountered a vampire, and if we applied that standard across Washington, we might be left with only 15 or 20 true leaders in Congress. Our country does not need life-takers but life-givers, leaders who bring energy to the hardest problems, who dream, who believe, and who actually create and enact big solutions to big problems. The first step is simple but not easy. Stop electing vampires. The second is even harder. Demand that the people we send to Washington give more than they take. No more small thinking dressed up as realism. The last step is the most challenging of all. We must impose term limits. When we started out as a country, we had founding fathers who did not agree with each other on everything.
Brian Hamilton: But they did agree on some very important things. It never would have occurred to Thomas Jefferson or George Washington to hang out in Washington, D.C. For 20 or 30 years. They had the good sense and, frankly, good manners not to overstay their welcome. Vampires are thriving in American politics because politics has become a profession, whereas it was supposed to be a short-term public service. Without term limits, people with the same old ideas and energy-sucking ways can stay in D.C. Indefinitely. And they do. Clearly, members of Congress are not motivated to vote themselves out of a job. How can we pass term limits without Congress itself proposing a constitutional amendment? Two-thirds of state legislatures, 34 out of 50, must pass resolutions calling for a convention where a constitutional amendment could be proposed. The challenges we face, the national debt, economic inequality, education, public health, national security, are too urgent for leadership that runs on autopilot or thrives on division. We need public servants who treat time like the scarce resource it is and act with urgency on behalf of the real needs of Americans. To win the future, America does not need perfect leaders. It needs energetic, committed, life-giving ones. It needs people who push us to think bigger and act faster, even when it is not politically convenient. The stakes are too high to let the vampires keep running the country. Urge your state legislature to pass a resolution calling for a convention on term limits. In the meantime, the next time you vote, ask yourself a simple question. Will this person give the nation more energy than they take from it? If not, guard your neck and do not vote for him or her. Brian Hamilton is the nationally recognized entrepreneur who founded Sageworks Now Abrigo, the country’s first fintech company. He is also the founder of the Brian Hamilton Foundation, an inmates-to-entrepreneurs, where he serves as the leading voice on the power of ownership to transform lives.
Philip Blumel: Let’s get back to our discussion. Let’s compare the Article V convention process of proposing an amendment versus the other method permitted by Article V, and that is when the U.S. Congress itself proposes amendments. The first thing to point out is that there is no way to limit the U.S. Congress to proposing amendments about any particular subject. As we’ve noted, with the convention, states can easily do so by limiting the subject of a convention by the application that they pass in order to create it. Well, Congress is an ongoing body. It can introduce proposals for amendments at any time, and they are far less restrained. So that’s one thing that’s safer about the convention process already. And, indeed, we constantly see Congress members introducing constitutional amendments left and right. On average, in the modern era, there are about 51 amendments introduced every year, and we’ve had approximately 11,985 amendments introduced in the U.S. Congress throughout U.S. History. Keep in mind, this is analogous to our theoretical delegate at the convention raising their hand 11,985 times with crazy new ideas for amendments. You could call this a runaway Congress, a permanent runaway Congress, not a one-time convention limited to a specific subject.
Philip Blumel: But has this proven dangerous? 11,985 amendments have been introduced in Congress, and we have only amended the U.S. Constitution 27 times in U.S. History. And remember, the first 10 amendments were the Bill of Rights, and they were ratified in 1791. Now why? Because the Founders made amending the Constitution very hard for a good reason, to protect it from the passing whims, fads, and demagogues. That is the reality without the fear-mongering. But even so, Congress isn’t actually an Article V Convention of the states. So next, let’s take a look at real conventions of the states. But first, some U.S. Tournaments news. The billboards are up. In this episode, we’re talking about the details of an Article V Convention, but of course all 27 of the constitutional amendments so far have been proposed by Congress, not a convention, before they were finally ratified by three-quarters of the states. So the other half of the U.S. Tournament strategy is to keep the U.S. Tournament’s congressional tournaments amendment introduced in both houses of Congress as legislation and to encourage Congress members to co-sponsor it. Our chief tool for doing this is the U.S. Tournament’s congressional pledge. Our staff and our volunteers contact all congressional candidates, including incumbents, to sign a pledge committing them to co-sponsor and vote for the U.S. Tournament’s amendment.
Philip Blumel: About 150 members of Congress have done so. It is our experience that most signers, believe it or not, live up to their commitment. But some don’t. On the campaign trail, they like the positive PR they get by signing the pledge. They like the applause they receive when they brag about it. But once they get in office, they try to leave the voters behind. These are the scofflaws. As a service to voters, U.S. Tournaments puts up billboards prominently in the districts of these scofflaws. Sadly, seven billboards went up for September in seven different states. Here’s the list. Representative Lori Trahan of Massachusetts. Representative Derek Van Orden of Wisconsin. Representative Abraham Hamada of Arizona. Representative Mike Carey of Ohio. Representative Anna Polina Luna of Florida. Representative Russ Fulcher of Idaho. And Representative Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania. Politicians hate these billboards. But there’s an easy way to avoid them. Stay true to your word and co-sponsor the U.S. Tournament’s amendment. We can look to Congress for some insights on how the convention would work. But we don’t really have to wonder what a multi-state convention would look like. We’ve had lots of them through history going back to the very beginning of our country. And that’s why our founders felt comfortable with them and included them in our Constitution.
Philip Blumel: Prior to our independence, the colonies would meet in convention to deal with issues. And then after our independence and after the Constitution was ratified, we had conventions of states. It was an accepted means of addressing critical issues like water rights or whatever between the states. States would call a convention, send delegates to come up with a plan to deal with the issue, and the states calling the convention would hammer out a proposal to be approved by the participating states. Well, we still do that today. Yes, today in 2025. We’ve done it almost annually since 1892. This Convention of States was originally called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Today it’s known as the Uniform Law Commission. Maybe you’ve heard of the Uniform Commercial Code, the UCC. Well, that came from this annual Convention of States. The point of the Commission is to standardize laws across the states so all the rules don’t change every time you cross a state line. The first convention was held in Saratoga, New York, with five states participating. Today, all 50 states do. This year’s meeting was the 134th annual meeting, and it was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico in July. For the annual Uniform Law Commission
Philip Blumel: Meeting, each state sends delegates and they’re seated together. They have an agreed-upon agenda, and they follow traditional convention rules, like Robert Rules of Order or whatever. One state, one vote. They might approve half a dozen model acts, or what they call uniform acts, that are added to the UCC. But much like an Article V convention, these model acts don’t create, alter, or change any laws. What happens is that the delegates bring the uniform act back to their state, and their state legislature can approve it or not. It is the states that hold the power to make the actual changes. Just like an Article V convention to approve constitutional amendments, all the power to make changes is retained by the states. It’s not handed over to these delegates. Now, have any delegates ever raised their hand and tried to get the convention off topic? I don’t know. Probably. Someone would have to go through all their minutes and find out. But more importantly, have any of these annual multi-state conventions ever gone off the rails? No. Not once. Not ever. The bottom line of all this is that the Article V convention process is a safe one. Those who oppose tournaments suggest otherwise to derail the tournaments conversation. And invoking the dangers of the convention, many tournament opponents are disingenuously changing the subject. But the facts are that 1. The Congress is likely to preempt the tournaments convention by proposing an amendment itself, if they see the convention as inevitable. And 2, even if they didn’t, a multi-state convention would safely propose such an amendment. Both of these alternative paths lead to the same goal, what some 87% are clamoring for, congressional term limits. Thank you for being part of this movement. Together, we’ll make history.
Stacey Selleck: Like the show? You can help by subscribing and leaving a 5-star review on both Apple and Spotify. It’s free.
Philip Blumel: Thanks for joining us for another episode of No Uncertain Terms. The Term Limits Convention Bills are moving through the state legislatures, this could be a breakthrough year for the Term Limits Movement. To check on the status of the Term Limits Convention Resolution in your state, go to termlimits.com/takeaction. There, you will see if it has been introduced and where it stands in the committee process on its way to the floor vote. If there’s action to take, you’ll see a Take Action button by your state, click it. This will give you the opportunity to send a message to the most relevant legislators urging them to support the legislation. They have to know you’re watching, that’s termlimits.com/takeaction. If your state has already passed the Term Limits Convention Resolution or the bill has not been introduced in your state, you can still help. Please consider making a contribution to U.S. Term Limits, It is our aim to hit the reset button on the U.S. Congress, and you can help, go to termlimits.com/donate. Termlimits.com slash donate. Thanks we’ll be back next week.
Stacey Selleck: Find us on most social media at U.S. Term Limits, like us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and now LinkedIn.