Compact for a Safe and Equal Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments
Summary
S. 1165 is a joint resolution that would enact South Carolina’s participation in the “Compact for a Safe and Equal Convention for Proposing Amendments,” an interstate compact aimed at governing any future Article V constitutional convention. The resolution declares that if two-thirds of the states ever trigger a convention for constitutional amendments, the convention must follow two core rules: each state gets one vote, and the convention may only consider topics that were specifically included in the states’ applications that led to the call. It also states that these rules cannot be altered by the convention itself, by Congress, or by any other procedural action.
The bill further requires member states to instruct and bind their delegates, include those instructions in delegate commissions, treat unauthorized delegate actions as ultra vires, and require delegates to sign an oath acknowledging possible removal for noncompliance. The compact would not take effect until 26 states adopt it, and it includes provisions on withdrawal, enforcement, and waiver of sovereign immunity for lawsuits among member states. The Clerk of the South Carolina Senate would be directed to send copies of the compact to all state legislatures, Congress, and the National Federalism Commission.
Impact
If enacted, the resolution would not directly amend the South Carolina Code but would commit the state to an interstate compact framework governing how South Carolina would participate in any Article V convention for proposing constitutional amendments. It would attempt to constrain delegate conduct, define the state’s role as exclusively legislative, and create enforcement mechanisms that could affect future delegate selection, instruction, and removal procedures. The measure also seeks to influence multistate constitutional-convention practice by asserting one-state, one-vote and subject-matter limits as binding rules.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears strongly supportive of state legislative control over any future constitutional convention and reflects a pro-federalism, precautionary approach. The bill’s findings suggest its sponsors view the compact as necessary to protect state sovereignty and prevent convention scope creep.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be constitutional and procedural. Supporters would favor the compact as a safeguard against a convention exceeding its mandate and as a way to ensure equal state voting power, while critics may question whether states can bind future conventions, whether Congress has the limited role the resolution describes, and whether the compact can lawfully restrict delegate or convention procedure. The waiver of sovereign immunity, the attempt to make delegate actions void if unauthorized, and the provision limiting withdrawal after a threshold number of applications are also likely to draw scrutiny from those concerned about enforceability and state autonomy.