Three times in American History Congress has proposed Amendments states wanted “Without a convention”. State pressure effectively helped force Congress to propose The Bill of Rights, the 17th Amendment for direct election of senators, and the 22nd Amendment for presidential term limits.
The likelihood of getting 2/3 of Congress to propose a Regulation Freedom Amendment under current conditions is small at best.
However there is an achievable legal and political strategy for empowering two-thirds of the states to force Congress to propose such an Amendment.
That strategy involves passing state laws in a majority of states, state constitutional amendments in 13 states, OR a U.S. House Rule, along with obtaining a pledge by 41 U.S. Senators, to protect the Constitution from the risk of a so-called “runaway convention”
The state law would strictly limit the authority of delegates to the scope of the state’s Article V Resolution and replace and punish delegates who violated the law in the same way some states now punish faithless presidential electors.
If the law were in effect in a majority of states with a majority of the population, a majority of delegates at any convention would be required to limit the scope of that convention.
The state constitutional amendment would prohibit that state from considering or ratifying a runaway amendment, in other words any amendment from a convention that the states who called the convention did not authorize the convention to consider.
If just 13 states enacted such an Amendment, it would be mathematically impossible for 31 states to ratify a “runaway” Amendment.
The U.S. House Rule, and the pledge or statement of intent by U.S. Senators, would prevent either chamber from passing a measure to refer a “runaway amendment” to the states for ratification.
Each of these actions individually or together would have the effect of enforcing the 10th Amendment power of states to strictly limit the scope of an Article V Convention they would have the power to threaten, if they at some point chose to do so.
That would help restore the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution intended by James Madison when he wrote in Federalist 43: “It (the Constitution) equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side or the other”
It would also be consistent with an American Bar Association Study that was authored by the Harvard Law School Dean Jeffrey Sachs and future Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who concluded that states had the constitutional power to limit the scope of a Convention.
In the current political environment, none of these actions would require a Democratic legislator’s vote, although bipartisan has certainly been helpful.
If states, through these actions, understood that they had the clear the power to limit a convention they threatened to an up or down vote on a single Amendment, they could safely force Congress to choose between proposing that Amendment or being required to call a convention.