Oppose Georgia Article V Con-Con Resolutions

Members of the Georgia General Assembly are seeking to pass resolutions applying to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments, under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con), in the 2021 legislative session.

At least three Con-Con resolutions have been filed for the 2021 session. Two of them, HR 39 and SR 28, are identical. They call for an Article V convention to propose a congressional term limits amendment to the Constitution. Most importantly, SR 29, calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) “imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, requiring a balanced budget subject to exceptions necessary to respond to emergencies and provide for the national defense.”

URGENT: On February 22, the Senate passed SR 28 and SR 29. These resolutions now head to the House for approval.

Georgia’s previously-passed application for a BBA Con-Con, SR 371 (passed in 2014), expired at the beginning of last year. SR 371 of 2014, specially stated: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application shall constitute a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until […] January 1, 2020.” If SR 29 passes, it would reapply Georgia as a state with an active application to Congress to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

IMPORTANT: SR 29 also aggregates active applications for a BBA Con-Con with applications for a plenary, or general, constitutional convention. This is a sneaky ploy by BBA Con-Con advocates to reach the necessary 34-state threshold without actually attaining 34 states specifically with a call for a BBA convention. The key portion of Senate Resolution 29 reads:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application shall be deemed an application for a convention to address only the subject herein stated. For the purposes of determining whether two-thirds of the states have applied for a convention addressing any of the subjects stated herein, this application is to be aggregated with the applications of any other state legislatures for the single subject of balancing the federal budget, including, but not limited to, previously adopted applications from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin; and this application shall be aggregated with the same for the purpose of attaining the two-thirds of states necessary to require the calling of a convention but shall not be aggregated with any applications on any other subject.

The six states of Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington do not have live applications for a BBA Con-Con, instead these six states have active applications for a plenary constitutional convention. Listed below, in chronological order from oldest to most recent, is a list of states with un-rescinded, and thus still active, applications for a plenary constitutional convention that SR 29 seeks to combine with the 27 active applications for a BBA Con-Con (notice the years in which each of the following six states applied to Congress for a plenary constitutional convention):

• New York (1789) for a Bill of Rights;
• Illinois (1861) to prevent the Civil War;
• Kentucky (1861) to prevent the Civil War;
• New Jersey (1861) to prevent the Civil War;
• Oregon (1901) – HJR 10; for the direct election of U.S. senators; and
• Washington (1901) – HB 90; for no stated purpose other than Congress simply “call a convention for proposing, amendments to the constitution of the United States of America as authorized by article v.”

SR 29 is sponsored by 16 senators (28% of the Senate); SR 28 is sponsored by 14 senators (25% of the Senate); and HR 39 is sponsored by 6 representatives (3% of the House). Thus, these resolutions already have sizable support in the General Assembly. It is imperative that patriots convince these and other senators of the dangers of an Article V convention.

Each of these Con-Con resolutions includes language emphasizing that they seek a “limited” convention that does not discuss unrelated topics. HR 39, for example, states that it seeks a convention “for the sole and express purpose” of congressional term limits and even calls on Congress to enact a severe criminal penalty for persons who violate the finite scope of the call.” However, any convention, no matter how well intentioned and regardless of how the state applications are worded, 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.

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. In addition to Scalia, George Washington and some of the other Founding Fathers opposed holding a second constitutional convention.

In particular, James Madison noted in a 1788 letter how extremists and special-interest advocates could hijack a potential second constitutional convention and cause great damage to the nation in the process:

“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, … it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”

The violent riots observed in multiple American inner cities in mid-2020, along with the increasingly extreme and blatantly Marxist agenda of the Democrat Party, help illustrate what the Left’s reaction would be if a Con-Con is successfully called.

However, a constitutional convention is unnecessary to protect individual liberty and limit the size and scope of government. The massive expansion of government and growing infringements on our liberties is not because of “problems” or “flaws” with the Constitution, but rather due to misinterpretation, wrongful application, or lack of enforcement altogether. If applied faithfully and accurately, in accordance with its original meaning, at least 80% of the federal government’s programs would likely be found unconstitutional.

Rather than passing any of these Article V convention applications, which risk a runaway convention threatening our individual freedoms, the General Assembly should consider Article VI and nullify unconstitutional federal 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 to reject the aforementioned Con-Con resolutions (Especially SR 29, as well as SR 28 and HR 39), any other Con-Con resolution, and to instead consider nullification as a safer and better constitutional means to limit unconstitutional federal overreach and actions, without risking damage or other undesirable alterations to the Constitution.