Members of the Arizona State Legislature are seeking to pass a resolution applying to Congress to “call a convention for proposing an amendment,” under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a federal constitutional convention (Con-Con) or “convention of the states.”
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1017 (SCR 1017) has been introduced. It applies to Congress “to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an inflation-fighting federal fiscal responsibility amendment.” Additionally, it calls upon the Archivist of the United States to formally announce that the minimum threshold of 34 states has been met to call a convention, and it urges Congress and the Arizona attorney general to take action to ensure such a disastrous and deceptive action.
Additionally, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018 (SCR 1018) and Senate Resolution 1002 (SR 1002) would regulate the selection of delegates to a convention. SCR 1018 is designed to give false assurance that a convention won’t get out of control, doing this by ostensibly regulating the appointment and conduct of delegates (referred in the bill as “commissioners”). Such a bill would be completely useless at preventing a runaway convention — for example, SCR 1018 doesn’t regulate delegates from other states, and it doesn’t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted to limit delegates’ authority).
Any Article V convention, no matter how well intentioned, could lead to a runaway convention that would 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.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia understood the danger of a constitutional convention. While he voiced support for one at a 1979 event, the justice had reversed his opinion by 2014 due to the uncertainty of what could come out of it. In 2015, Scalia reiterated his opposition to an Article V convention, stating “this is not a good century to write a constitution.” Furthermore, what kind of delegates would Arizona send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and leftist Democrats?
On December 9, 2021, constitutionalist U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), warning against a Con-Con, tweeted:
Show me a single state where Constitutionalists comprise a majority of the state legislature.
At this point in history, an Article V Convention of the States would be a disaster.
In 1979, then-U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, correctly warned about an Article V convention:
If we hold a constitutional convention, every group in the country — majority, minority, middle-of-the-road, left, right, up, down — is going to get its two bits in and we are going to wind up with a constitution that will be so far different from the one we have lived under for 200 years that I doubt that the Republic could continue.
In addition to its unpredictable nature, an Article V convention also threatens U.S. national security. In 1984, when the U.S. was only two states away from Congress calling a federal constitutional convention under the guise of proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird wrote an op-ed warning of the perils convening a convention. Secretary Laird correctly noted that such a convention’s “scope and authority aren’t defined or limited by the Constitution.” Of the implications of holding such a convention, Laird warned:
If a convention were called, our allies and foes alike would soon realize the new pressures imposed upon our republic. The mere act of convening a constitutional convention would send tremors throughout all those economies that depend on the dollar. It would undermine our neighbors’ confidence in our constitutional integrity and would weaken not only our economic stability but the stability of the free world. That’s a price we cannot afford.
Both Goldwater and Laird considered an Article V Convention threatening to the continuity of the United States’ republican form of government. It would be foolhardy and downright reckless to disregard these and other legitimate concerns.
Additionally, Congressman Andy Biggs has also spoken out against the deceptive efforts for a so-called “Convention of States.”
As Rep. Biggs said to The New American, “I’m a big believer that it isn’t the Constitution that’s the problem, it is the people who ignore the Constitution that usurp power and abuse the constitutional power that they ostensibly have.”
An Article V convention possesses the inherent power to propose any changes to the U.S. Constitution, including drafting and proposing an entirely new “modern” (i.e. socialist) constitution. Instead, the Arizona Legislature should consider Article VI and nullify unconstitutional laws.
Furthermore, state lawmakers should also consider rescinding any and all previously passed Article V convention applications to Congress, regardless of the desired amendment(s). Passing rescission resolutions will help prevent aggregating past Article V convention applications with those from other states to force Congress to call a convention.
Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose SCR 1017, SCR 1018, SR 1002, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.
Although we provide a way to easily email legislators, we know from long experience that it takes a lot more interaction with your legislators to get your point across than that provided by emails alone.
That's why we provide an easy way not only to email them, but to contact them by phone, tweet, and even video message them.
