Stop Maine Federal Constitutional Convention Resolution HP 1448

URGENT: A new Con-Con resolution, HP 1448, has been introduced in the Maine Legislature. It is identical to SP 705, a bipartisan Con-Con resolution applying for a convention to propose a congressional term-limits amendment and a campaign finance reform amendment, that was defeated by a 12-18 vote in the Senate in February. This disastrous resolution, if enacted, would take us one step closer to throwing out the U.S. Constitution. Please contact you state legislators and urge them to oppose HP 1448.

Members of the Maine Legislature are seeking to pass resolutions applying to Congress to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a federal constitutional convention (Con-Con) or “convention of the states.”

House Paper 1448 (HP 1448) applies for 1) a convention to propose a congressional term-limits amendment and 2) a campaign finance reform amendment. Regarding a campaign finance reform amendment, HP 1448 declares: “That the Legislature of Maine hereby applies to the Congress of the United States, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution, to call a convention of the states limited to proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution to regulate the role of money in elections and governance to ensure transparency, prevent corruption, protect against the buying of access to or influence over representatives and overturn the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases.”

Typically, congressional term limits Con-Con applications are backed by the purportedly conservative-leaning Term Limits USA organization, while campaign finance reform Con-Con applications to overturn the Citizens United case and regulate money in politics are backed by the leftist Wolf-PAC organization. The combination of both types of desired constitutional amendment proposals highlights the dangers of a both the left and right working together for convening a constitutional convention. It also underscores the fact that the left wants a Con-Con too to radically change the Constitution.

Senate Paper 600 (SP 600) was also introduced. It would have applied to Congress for a convention to proposed a so-called Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), which would require spending to not exceed revenue “in the absence of a national emergency.” The resolution stated that it would be considered alongside other BBA applications, including several that are rescinded and no longer relevant. Thankfully, the Legislature voted 12-20 against SP 600; the resolution is dead. Meanwhile, Senate Paper 705 (SP 705) was also introduced, but the Legislature voted 12-18 against it, meaning it is dead.

House Paper 1058 (HP 1058) also was introduced. It followed the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) Action/Project application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government and limit the terms of office for Federal Government officials and members of Congress.” Thankfully, this resolution is dead.

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. 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 Maine send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?

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.

Goldwater 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.

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).

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 Maine 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 HP 1448 and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.