{"id":119218,"date":"2023-03-08T11:13:23","date_gmt":"2023-03-08T17:13:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=119218"},"modified":"2024-03-21T10:16:33","modified_gmt":"2024-03-21T15:16:33","slug":"stop-hawaii-cos-con-con-applications","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/stop-hawaii-cos-con-con-applications\/","title":{"rendered":"Stop Hawaii Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image-box\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

URGENT:<\/mark> Disastrous COS Con-Con resolutions SR 168 and SCR 196 have been passed out of committee.<\/strong> Please contact your senator, along with your representatives, and urge them to protect the U.S. Constitution by opposing a dangerous Article V constitutional convention.<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>

Members of the Hawaii State Legislature are seeking to pass resolutions applying to Congress to \u201ccall a Convention for proposing Amendments,\u201d under Article V<\/a> of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as a federal constitutional convention<\/a> (Con-Con) or \u201cconvention of states,\u201d as some erroneously refer to it.<\/p>

House Concurrent Resolution No. 54 (HCR 54<\/a>), Senate Resolution No. 168 (SR 168<\/a>), and Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 196 (SCR 196<\/a>) follow the wording of Mark Meckler\u2019s Convention of States (COS) Project application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments \u201cthat 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.\u201d<\/p>

The resolutions list various \u201creservations, understandings, and declarations,\u201d ostensibly to prevent a runaway convention. However, any Article V convention<\/a>, no matter how well intentioned, could lead to a runaway convention<\/a> that would reverse many of the Constitution\u2019s limitations on government power and interference. In other words, a Con-Con <\/strong>could accomplish the same goals<\/strong><\/a> that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against. <\/strong>As evidence, both a 2016<\/a> and 2023 simulated “Convention of States”<\/a> resulted in amendments massively increasing the federal government and expanding its spending powers.<\/p>

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia understood<\/a> the danger of a constitutional convention. In 2015, Scalia reiterated his opposition to an Article V convention, stating \u201cthis is not a good century to write a constitution<\/strong>.\u201d Furthermore, what kind of delegates would Hawaii send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?<\/mark><\/span><\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>

In 1979, then-U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, correctly warned about an Article V convention:<\/p>

If we hold a constitutional convention, every group in the country \u2014 majority, minority, middle-of-the-road, left, right, up, down \u2014 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>

Goldwater considered an Article V Convention threatening to the continuity of the United States\u2019 republican form of government. It would be foolhardy and downright reckless to disregard these and other legitimate concerns.<\/p>

When speaking to your legislators, emphasize the following irrefutable facts about an Article V convention for proposing amendments:<\/strong><\/p>

  1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.<\/li>\n\n
  2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.<\/li>\n\n
  3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.<\/li>\n\n
  4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.<\/li>\n\n
  5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.<\/li>\n\n
  6. There is no provision for how rules would be established.<\/li>\n\n
  7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.<\/li>\n\n
  8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.<\/li>\n\n
  9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.<\/li>\n\n
  10. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.<\/li>\n\n
  11. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.<\/li>\n\n
  12. There is no means provided for either the states or the people to challenge Congress\u2019s choice of the method of ratification.<\/li>\n\n
  13. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.<\/li>\n\n
  14. The acceptance by one Congress of a state application for a convention does not bind subsequent Congresses from accepting that application.<\/li>\n\n
  15. Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application.<\/li>\n\n
  16. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.<\/li>\n\n
  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.<\/li>\n\n
  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.<\/li>\n\n
  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).<\/li><\/ol>

    An Article V convention possesses the inherent power to propose any<\/em><\/strong> changes to the U.S. Constitution, including drafting and proposing an entirely new \u201cmodern\u201d (i.e. socialist) constitution. Instead, the Hawaii State Legislature should consider Article VI<\/a> and nullify<\/a> unconstitutional laws.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>

    Furthermore, state lawmakers should also consider rescinding any and all previously passed Article V convention applications to Congress, regardless of the desired amendment(s).<\/em><\/strong> Passing rescission resolutions will help prevent aggregating past Article V convention applications with those from other states to force Congress to call a convention.<\/p>

    Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose HCR 54, SR 168, SCR 196, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider <\/mark><\/strong>nullification<\/strong><\/a> as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>

    \r\n\t
    \r\n\t\t\t
    \r\n\t\t\t\t\t
    \r\n\t\t\t