Stop Montana Federal Constitutional Convention Resolution SJ 4

URGENT: “Delegate” bill SB 120 has been introduced. Con-Con supporters are using this bill to assure legislators that a federal constitutional convention won’t get out of control, even though SB 120 would be completely useless at its ostensible goal. Any Article V constitutional convention — regardless of the stated topic or any state-enacted “safeguards” — carries the inherent risk of getting out of control and making radical changes to the U.S. Constitution. Urge your state legislators to oppose both SB 120 and Con-Con resolution SJ 4.

Please Additionally, please continue contacting the following five key senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and urge them to oppose SJ 4 and all other Con-Con resolutions:

• Sen. Barry Usher (R), 1-406-252-2888, [email protected]
• Sen. Vince Ricci (R), 1-406-855-9153, [email protected]
• Sen. Gayle Lammers (R), 1-406-679-0020, [email protected]
• Sen. Sue Vinton (R), 1-406-855-2625, [email protected]
• Sen. Daniel Emrich (R), 1-406-781-9355, [email protected]

Let the senators know that SJ 4 isn’t just an application for a so-called Balanced Budget Amendment; it’s an application for a convention that cannot be limited, and which could lead to radical changes to the Constitution.

Members of the Montana 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 constitutional convention (Con-Con) or “convention of the states,” as some erroneously refer to it.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 (SJ 4) would apply to Congress to call a convention to propose a so-called “Balanced Budget Amendment” (BBA). However, a BBA would have significant loopholes allowing for continued excessive federal spending while enabling further expansion of the federal government.

Senate Bill No. 120 (SB 120) has also been introduced. This bill is designed to give false assurance that a convention won’t get out of control, doing this by ostensibly regulating the appointment and conduct of delegates. Such a bill would be completely useless at preventing a runaway convention — for example, the bills don’t regulate delegates from other states, and it doesn’t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted to limit delegates’ authority).

SJ 4 claims it is “limited to” its listed topic. However, 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.

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).

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 Montana 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.

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 Montana 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 SJ 4 and all other Con-Con resolutions and bills, and to consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.