Members of the Massachusetts General Court are seeking to pass a resolution 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 a “convention of states,” as some erroneously call it.
Senate Resolution No. 2319 (S.2319) and House Resolution No. 3502 (H.3502) apply for a convention to “propose an amendment to the Constitution that would affirm that (a) the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons, i.e. human individuals, only and (b) Congress and the states shall place limits on political contributions and expenditures to ensure that all citizens have access to the political process, and the spending of money to influence elections is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.”
Additionally, House Resolution No. 3541 (H.3541) follows the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) 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 its officials and for members of Congress.”
S.2319 and H.3502 also urge Congress to propose such an amendment itself, and it would only because an application under Article V six months after passage. If passed, this application would be considered along with the existing Wolf-PAC applications of three other states (although the resolution erroneously names five states — two of those since rescinded their applications).
Unlike most other Article V convention applications, the Wolf-PAC Con-Con application is sponsored and supported by leftists and claims to seek leftist policy outcomes, namely campaign finance “reform” that would restrict the First Amendment. As Joe Wolverton’s 2015 TNA article “Citizens United for Free Speech” points out, a Wolf-PAC Con-Con would have a detrimental effect on free speech and the individual liberty of ordinary Americans.
S.2319, H.3502, and other Wolf-PAC resolutions illustrate the danger of a Con-Con, particularly that the Left supports a Con-Con and would use one to curtail our God-given liberties.
However, 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.
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 Massachusetts send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?
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.
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 Massachusetts General Court 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 S.2319, H.3502, H.3541, 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.
