The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government (until recently chaired by now-Speaker of the House Mike Johnson) recently held a hearing on “Examining Proposed Constitutional Amendments” — included those proposed via applications to Congress to call an Article V constitutional convention. Republicans in the U.S. House are increasingly falling for a disastrous Article V convention, which could reverse the existing Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference. Contact your U.S. representative and senators, and urge them to oppose all Con-Con proposals, including H.Con.Res. 24 and S. 810.
Members of Congress have introduced a resolution to call an Article V Constitutional Convention, or Con-Con. If enacted, this would decimate the Constitution and the God-given individual liberties that it protects. Deceptively, the resolution aggregates old, rescinded, and unrelated state legislative applications to Congress for a convention.
House Concurrent Resolution 24 (H.Con.Res. 24) is sponsored by Jodey Arrington (R-Texas). If passed by the House and Senate, it would call “a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States for a date and place to be determined on calling the Convention.”
Importantly, H.Con.Res. 24 deceptively reaches the 34-state threshold for calling a convention by aggregating “Balanced Budget Amendment” (BBA) applications with unrelated — and in many cases, centuries-old — applications for a plenary convention. The resolution states:
Whereas congressional and State records of plenary applications for amendments on any subject and applications for the single subject of Inflation-fighting Fiscal Responsibility Amendments compiled by the Article V Library counts Nevada’s “continuing” application, reported February 8, 1979, in the Congressional Record, as the 34th thus achieving the “two thirds” congressional mandate to call the Convention for proposing amendments; congressional records reported 39 applications by the end of 1979, 40 in 1983, and 42 total applications over time[.]
Despite mentioning “Fiscal Responsibility Amendments” (FRA) in its preamble, H.Con.Res. 24 does not limit the scope of the convention to only BBA or FRA Con-Con applications — there is nothing stopping Congress from considering any other topic in the Constitutional Convention it would call under the resolution.
Furthermore, several of aggregated applications have either been rescinded or have already seen their objectives met — they should be ineligible to be counted in any manner whatsoever.
Additionally, S. 810, sponsored by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.), has been introduced. This bill would require the U.S. House Clerk and the U.S. Senate Secretary to make it easier for people to find and view each application for an Article V convention. Although S. 810 sounds innocuous, Sen. Braun stated in a press release supporting a similar bill in the previous Congress that such legislation would “help hold Congress accountable to public desire for a Convention.”
The John Birch Society has been warning about this aggregation scheme. Delegates to any constitutional convention possess the inherent sovereign right of the people at large to propose any amendments or an entirely new constitution, as was the case in the original Convention of 1787. In other words, any Constitutional Convention under Article V cannot be limited. In a 1982 interview with the Los Angeles Times, President Ronald Reagan said, “Well, constitutional conventions are kind of prescribed as a last resort, because then once it’s open, they could take up any number of things.”
He was right. A Constitutional Convention, under Article V, could reverse the existing Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference. Furthermore, the aggregation scheme decimates any possible notions that the convention would be “limited” or confined to a single subject or amendments.
Additionally, every so-called “balanced budget amendment” proposal includes loopholes or escape clauses that would easily allow Congress to continue to increase spending and/or raise taxes. In other words, these amendments would make an unbalanced budget constitutional!
Commenting on H.Con.Res. 24, one Con-Con proponent claimed the resolution was “designed to restore federal fiscal sanity.” However, as shown above, this claim is false. Rather, all Congress needs to do is to end its wasteful and unconstitutional spending; if it does this, federal spending would likely decrease by at least 80%, thus quickly eliminating our nation’s fiscal problems.Accordingly, Congress must reject H.Con.Res. 24, S. 810, and every other dangerous Con-Con proposal. And instead, it must get serious about out-of-control spending by simply ending it. Please urge your U.S. representative and senators to do just that.
