At a business forum in Harrisonburg, Virginia on December 16, 2008, Virginia State Senator Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon) announced that he planned to introduce a bill in the Virginia Assembly in early 2009 that would request Congress to call a constitutional convention (con-con) for the purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On January 14, 2009, Senator Hanger followed through and introduced Senate Joint Resolution No. 315 (SJR315) "Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the United States to provide for a balanced budget requirement. "

[Attention Virginia residents: Click here to take immediate action to email your representative and senator in Richmond in opposition to SJR315; and click here to view and join (requires free registration to join) "Virginians Against a Constitutional Convention," an online group for networking with other Virginians who oppose  a con-con.]

Back in the 1970s and 80s thirty-two states passed resolutions calling on Congress to convene a con-con for the purpose of considering the addition of a balanced budget amendment (bba) to the U.S. Constitution. According to Article V of the Constitution, when two-thirds (34) of the states issue requests for a con-con, Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Thus, only two more states requesting a bba con-con would be needed in order for Congress to go ahead and call a con-con.

However, during the past 20 years there has been a growing awareness among voters and state legislators that an Article V constitutional convention could not be restricted to considering just one type of amendment, but could (and probably would) go on to entertain and propose many amendments to the Constitution. If many amendments were to be proposed by a con-con, and if three-quarters of the states were to ratify them, the Constitution could be radically changed for the worse. For more background on this matter, please view a free online video, "Beware Article V":

This growing awareness of the negative downsides of a con-con has led ten states to rescind their con-con calls during the past 20 years or so. One of these ten states is Virginia, whose legislature rescinded all of its previous con-con calls in 2004.

The bottom line is that as few as two more states requesting a con-con for a balanced budget amendment could force Congress to call a con-con. It would take a total of 34 states. If we count every state that has ever issued a bba con-con call, there are already 32 on record. If Congress and the courts would honor the rescissions of con-con calls by ten states, then there are only 22 on record and twelve more state calls would be required to have a con-con.

Just to be on the safe side, let's work as if Virginia could become one of only two more states required for a con-con. If you are a resident of Virginia, please contact your representative and senator in Richmond and express your strong opposition to SJR315, which would apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention in accordance with Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Bill Walker said:

I'd really suggest JBS gets its facts straight There's a point in any presentation where it is advisable that the truth be told however painful that may be to the person (or group) having to make the statement. This is now the situation facing the John Birch Society and an Article V Convention. There is no way anyone will believe that people in the John Birch Society responsible for writing blogs and other items like the above article can not possibly not know about the fact that all 50 states have applied over 650 times for an Article V Convention and that these applications are viewable on the web site www.foavc.org . To maintain the fiction that only 32 states have applied for an Article V Convention when even if rescissions were valid, it is clear beyond basic third-grade level math that if 10 states have rescinded their applications, thus leaving 40 states applying, a sufficient number of applying states still remain to compel a convention call. And of course, as the Supreme Court has directly addressed the issue of implied powers or the right of courts or legislatures, state or national, to construe Article V and said no such power exists, it is beyond question these rescissions are not constitutionally valid. It is time the John Birch Society came out of its 30 year old tirade about a convention and dealt with the facts about a convention as they truly are instead of trying to convince everyone about "facts" that simply aren't true and can be easily disproved by examination of public record. It is time the John Birch Society stopped using a convention as an excuse to try and prevent a balanced budget amendment. If the group wishes to oppose that amendment, fine. But to try to destroy the Constitution by attacking the its form of government which includes an Article V Convention by spreading lies about the convention is inexcusable. I invite all reading this response to come to www.foavc.org and learn the facts. Then decide. This includes members of the John Birch Society.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2009 | url
Votes: -5

archtoplee said:

Article V The states include the 10th amendment to keep most of the decisions of government in the domain of the states and not inthe hands of the central government. It should be clear to anyone that the states can rescind their petitions or formal calls for a Constitutional Convention as many times as the states want before the required 32 states all have calls for a convention at the same time. We live in world of people who would like to convene another convention and make the US Constitution officially null and void. So why would anyone who loves the Constitution want to take that chance? It's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in the Congress not Thomas Jefferson and James Madison!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2009
Votes: +2

crusadertx said:

	... Not only is it important for the patriots of Virginia to oppose this move, it is equally important that patriots in the states that have already signed on to this miscarriage rally to pursuade the legislatures to rescind their previous approval. We must keep the number of states approving below the critical number. This is probably the biggest threat to the American way of life there is.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 23, 2009
Votes: +1

James Walter Rollins said:

truck driver We don't have to worry about a con-con destroying our freedom and way of life. Nancy Pelosi and Congress are in the final phase of doing that right now. President Obama will sign any liberal/socialist/anti-capitalist bill that passes out of Congress with no regard for what the Constitution says about the limited role of the federal government. I think a con-con is one of only two peaceful ways left to regain our freedom and limit the power of the federal goverment. The only other peaceful way I can see is for individual states to stand up to the federal government and say we're not going to accept or enforce your federal mandates and laws, and we're not going to let you force us to bail out these other states that are going bankrupt. This is make or break time. If 10 more years go by without breaking the strangle hold Congress has on our economy and our wallets and our freedom, this country is finished.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2009
Votes: -1

Eric Nordstrom said:

I'm Shocked That The JBS Hold This Position! I am by no means radical in my ways or thoughts unless patriotism to the Constitution, Liberty and Freedom are radical now. I usually see eye to eye with the JBS stand, but I must wholly discourage the stand concerning not wanting a con-con. To not want a con-con out of fear that the Constitution may be altered to an unrecognizable state while our current state is to not recognize the Constitution is suicidal. I understand the need to not throw the baby out with the bath water, but we can't simply let the baby unattended in the bath for too much longer. I respect the JBS perspective on this however the above article is missing one item, an alternative solution.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 03, 2009 | url
Votes: -2

Nordstrom said:

	Perhaps Perhaps in the absence of a solution, the JBS is referring to the use of force as the alternative.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 03, 2009 | url
Votes: -1