Enact HF 3088 to Rescind Minnesota’s Article V Con-Con Applications
Legislative Alerts
Members of the Minnesota Legislature are attempting to pass HF 3088, which would rescind every live application to Congress calling for a convention to propose amendments, under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con).
Contact your state legislators
Please help pass HF 3088 by contacting your state legislators. Inform them of the dangers of a Con-Con and of the benefits of using nullification instead. Furthermore, urge them to accordingly rescind all Con-Con applications previously passed by the Legislature.
Why it Matters
Members of the Minnesota Legislature are attempting to pass legislation to rescind every live application to Congress calling for a federal constitutional convention (Con-Con).
House File No. 3088 (HF 3088) is sponsored by Representatives Tina Liebling (D-Rochester), Rick Hansen (D-South St. Paul), and Andrew Smith (D-Rochester). It declares, in part:
WHEREAS, in 1901, the legislature of the State of Minnesota adopted Senate File 94, a joint resolution applying to the Congress of the United States for an Article V constitutional convention on the topic of the popular vote election of United States Senators; and
WHEREAS, in 1909, the legislature of the State of Minnesota adopted Joint Resolution 17, applying to the Congress of the United States for an Article V constitutional convention on the topic of polygamy; and
WHEREAS, in 1965, the legislature of the State of Minnesota adopted Resolution 5, applying to the Congress of the United States for an Article V constitutional convention on the topic of apportionment….
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Minnesota that the applications cited in this resolution are rescinded and have no legal effect.
Nevertheless, 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.
Additionally, in the last years of his life, the late Justice Antonin Scalia stood opposed to an Article V convention. Asked about it in a 2015 interview, he remarked that “This is not a good century to write a constitution.” Furthermore, what kind of delegates would Minnesota 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.
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 Minnesota Legislature should consider Article VI and nullify unconstitutional laws.
Above all, urge your state representative and senator to support HF 3088, rescind all Article V convention applications, and to consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government instead.