Legislative Hearing Scheduled Tuesday, March 19, for Article V Con-Con HJR 5 in Tennessee Legislature

Posted on by Admin

The Tennessee Senate State and Local Government Committee has scheduled a hearing on term-limits Con-Con resolution HJR 5 for Tuesday, March 19, at 10:30 am in Senate Hearing Room 1. 

HJR 5 has already passed the House, so if it passes the Senate, this disastrous resolution will be fully enacted.

WE encourage you to attend this hearing and to testify against this dangerous resolution on Tuesday, March 19. 

If you submit written testimony against HJR 5, attach your letter (PDF, if possible) to Research Analyst Meredith Vitale by early Monday morning (CST) for distribution to committee members: 

Meredith.Vitale@capitol.tn.gov. Address your written testimony to: Senator Briggs, Chair; Senator Walley, Vice-Chair; Senator Pody, 2nd Vice-Chair; and Members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee.

Additionally, we encourage you to call the House offices of the members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee and urge them to oppose and vote NO on HJR 5. Listed below are the names and phone numbers of the committee members:

REGARDING both legislative hearings scheduled for Tuesday, March 19 at 10:30am, if you attend to give an oral testimony against Con-Con resolution HJR 5, emphasize the following irrefutable facts about an Article V convention for proposing amendments:

  1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.
  2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.
  3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.
  4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.
  5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.
  6. There is no provision for how rules would be established.
  7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.
  8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.
  9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.
  10. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
  11. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
  12. There is no means provided for either the states or the people to challenge Congress’s choice of the method of ratification.
  13. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.
  14. The acceptance by one Congress of a state application for a convention does not bind subsequent Congresses from accepting that application.
  15. Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application.
  16. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.
  17. The issues to be addressed at a convention to propose amendments would likely be moot by the time the challenges reached the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication.
  18. If 100 percent of registered voters opposed an amendment proposed by a convention, but the requisite number of state legislatures or ratifying conventions (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) supported it, then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people.
  19. The same scenario is true if a proposed amendment were approved by 100 percent of registered voters but rejected by the ratification conventions or state legislatures (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments).

Term limits is one of the main excuses for applying for an Article V convention. Here are some points refuting a congressional term limits amendments:

  1. Term limits don’t tackle the fundamental issue of public understanding and responsibility for electing representatives. 
  2. Imposing term limits would limit the electoral choices of voters and potentially remove good, constitutionalist congressmen. 
  3. Imposing term limits contradicts the American government system established by the Founders. The Constitution’s provision for frequent elections effectively serves as term limits, as intended by the Founders like James Madison. 
  4. Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 72, criticized the superficial appeal of term limits, a view applicable to many COS proposals. At the Constitutional Convention, Gouverneur Morris warned against term limits for their negative impact on motivation and good governance. 
  5. The Constitution already sets “good behavior” as a term limit for federal judges, with removal power vested in Congress. COS’s push to limit Supreme Court justices’ terms overlooks the existing constitutional provision and responsibility of Congress to impeach underperforming judges. 
  6. Effective governance can be achieved by enforcing the existing Constitution, not by amending it to limit terms.

Additionally, review new Article V Academy series of short videos to refresh your knowledge about the dangers of an Article V convention for proposing amendments.

You can access the videos at: JBS.org/ConCon/Academy 

Any Article V convention could lead to a runaway convention, which could reverse many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference. In other words, a Con-Con could accomplish the same goals that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against. 

Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose all pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.

Related Posts

The state of Republicans

  • Lynn
  • July 4, 2024
  • 0

There have been multiple threats made, by deranged Marxist lunatics, on President Trump’s life in the past few days.  In the face of those threats, […]