Stop Texas COS Con-Con Resolutions — and Rescind ALL other Article V Con-Con Applications

Members of the Texas Legislature are considering dangerous proposals to apply for an Article V constitutional convention and extend Texas’ existing Con-Con applications — these disastrous proposals could help destroy the U.S. Constitution and the God-given freedoms it protects.

House Joint Resolution No. 22 (HJR 22), House Joint Resolution No. 98 (HJR 98), and Senate Joint Resolution No. 41 (SJR 41) would effectively extend Texas’ COS application.

Meanwhile, House Joint Resolution No. 118 (HJR 118) would apply to Congress for a convention to propose a congressional term-limits amendment.

In 2017, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 (SJR 2), which applied for a convention based on the Convention of States (COS) organization’s model resolution, to propose amendments “to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office of federal officials and members of Congress.”

Although this resolution did not contain a sunset clause, the Legislature also enacted Senate Joint Resolution No. 38 (SJR 38), which rescinded most of the state’s previous Con-Con applications. Additionally, the resolution stated:

[T]he 85th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 2017, hereby declares that any application to the United States Congress for the calling of a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution that is submitted by the Texas Legislature during or after this Regular Session shall be automatically rescinded, repealed, revoked, canceled, voided, and nullified if the applicable convention is not called on or before the eighth anniversary of the date the last legislative vote is taken on the application; …

Accordingly, SJR 2 is set to automatically expire in 2025. Since the Texas Legislature only meets every other year, it only has one more chance in 2025 (barring a special session this year) to remove the sunset clause.

A Con-Con would be disastrous for our constitutional Republic. Any Article V convention, no matter how well-intentioned, could lead to a runaway convention and 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. As evidence, both a 2016 and 2023 simulated “Convention of States” resulted in amendments massively increasing the federal government and expanding its spending powers.

Additionally, conservative commentator Glenn Beck, who was a longtime supporter of COS, withdrew his support for COS during the September 15, 2022 episode of the Glenn Beck Show. “We are not the people to open up this sacred document. We are not the people — that was a God-inspired document,” Beck said. “I withdraw my support. And I’m sorry to say that, but I withdraw my support.… This Constitution is wholly inadequate for anyone other than a religious and moral people. We are not those people.” Click HERE to watch a video of Beck reversing his endorsement of COS.

When speaking to your legislators, 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).

For more facts about convening an Article V convention, The John Birch Society urges you read and distribute copies of our latest 16-page “Article V Convention Brief,” written by JBS Constitutional Law Scholar Dr. Joe Wolverton, J.D. Click HERE to download a free PDF of the “Article V Convention Brief,” and click HERE to purchase professional print copies for educational distribution.

Accordingly contact and urge your state legislators to oppose any Article V convention resolutions, including HJR 22, HJR 98, SJR 41, and HJR 118, and to instead rescind every existing “live” applications to Congress to call such a convention.