URGENT: AJR 9, a “COS Project” Article V constitutional convention (Con-Con) resolution, was passed by the Assembly on May 11, by a 58-36 vote! The resolution now only needs to be passed by the Senate to be enacted.
NOTE: Con-Con resolutions SJR 8, SJR 12, and AJR 16 have also been approved by their respective committees and sent to their chambers’ floors. They can be scheduled any day for a vote!
Members of the Wisconsin Legislature are seeking to pass a resolution 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.
Assembly Joint Resolution 9 (AJR 9) and Senate Joint Resolution 8 (SJR 8) have been introduced for the 2021 legislative session. Both are identical, following the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States Project, or 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.”
Additionally, Senate Joint Resolution 12 (SJR 12) and Assembly Joint Resolution 16 (AJR 16) have been introduced. They call for a convention to proposed a congressional term limits amendment. Also introduced is Senate Joint Resolution 58 (SJR 58) and Assembly Joint Resolution 77 (AJR 77), which call for a convention to propose an amendment keeping the Supreme Court at nine justices.
Both AJR 9 and SJR 8 are sponsored by seven senators (21% of the Senate) and 35 representatives (35% of the Assembly). Meanwhile, SJR 12 and AJR 16 are sponsored by four senators and 15 representatives, while SJR 58 and AJR 77 are sponsored by four senators and 14 representatives. Thus, these resolutions already have sizable support in the legislature, making all the more urgent to speak out against it.
Despite the resolutions’ language seeking a “limited” convention, any 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.
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 various 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 – including just in the past few months – 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 Article V convention applications, which risk a runaway convention threatening our individual freedoms, the 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 reject AJR 9, AJR 16, SJR 8, SJR 12, SJR 58, and any other pro-Article V convention resolutions, and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit unconstitutional federal overreach and actions, without risking damage or other undesirable alterations to the U.S. Constitution.
Although we provide a way to easily email legislators (blue box), 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.
