{"id":137946,"date":"2023-02-02T11:04:13","date_gmt":"2023-02-02T17:04:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=137946"},"modified":"2024-01-25T15:46:54","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T21:46:54","slug":"stop-nebraska-cos-con-con-extension-application-lr-31","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/stop-nebraska-cos-con-con-extension-application-lr-31\/","title":{"rendered":"Stop Nebraska COS Con-Con Extension Application LR 31"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image-box\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>\n\n

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

ACT NOW:<\/mark> Con-Con extension application LR 31 and delegate bill LB 195 are currently pending in the Legislature.<\/strong> When Nebraska applied for a convention in 2022, its application only passed when a “sunset clause” (automatically rescinding it in 2027) was added. Now, senators want to renege on that promise by removing the sunset clause.<\/p>

Also, repealing the sunset clause is an admission by convention promoters that this will be a very lengthy \u2014 decades-long \u2014 process. If a convention is so urgent, as Convention of States (COS) and other organizations claim, why tolerate such a lengthy process while ignoring much faster and safer solutions like nullification?<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>

Furthermore, LB 195 \u2014 merely a useless bill to deceive legislators into believing that a convention won’t get out of control \u2014 is the “priority bill” of Senator Steve Halloran. Contact your senator and urge him or her to oppose these dangerous and deceptive bills!<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>

Members of the Nebraska Legislature are seeking to pass a resolution LR 31 that would extend the state\u2019s existing COS application by removing the sunset clause allowing it to expire. Legislators must stop this, and they must rescind every existing application for an Article V constitutional convention.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>

In January 2022, the Legislature voted to open up the U.S. Constitution<\/a> to radical changes by passing a resolution applying for an Article V Con-Con. That resolution followed 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 members of Congress.\u201d<\/p>

However, in order to secure the necessary support to pass the resolution, its sponsors were forced to add a \u201csunset clause\u201d automatically rescinding it in 2027.<\/p>

Now, the sponsors want to remove the sunset clause entirely. Legislative Resolution 31 (<\/mark>LR 31<\/a>) has been introduced and, if passed, would indefinitely extend Nebraska\u2019s COS application.<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>

Legislative Bill 195 (LB 195<\/a>) has also been introduced, and it is the “priority bill” of Senator Steve Halloran.<\/strong> This bill would create guidelines to regulate the conduct of delegates to a convention. LB 195 would be completely useless<\/a> at preventing a runaway convention<\/strong> \u2014 for example, it doesn’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<\/a> to limit delegates’ authority). The bill would merely create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control.<\/p>

Any convention could lead to a\u00a0runaway convention<\/a>\u00a0that would reverse many of the Constitution\u2019s limitations on government power and interference. In other words, a Con-Con\u00a0<\/strong>could accomplish the same goals<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against. <\/strong>As evidence, both a 2016<\/a> and 2023\u00a0simulated “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. While he voiced support for one at a 1979 event<\/a>, 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 \u201cthis is not a good century to write a constitution<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>

On December 9, 2021, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie<\/a> (R-Ky.), warning against a Con-Con, tweeted<\/a>:<\/p>

Show me a single state where Constitutionalists comprise a majority of the state legislature.<\/p>\n\n

At this point in history, an Article V Convention of the States would be a disaster.<\/p><\/blockquote>

An Article V constitutional convention is unnecessary to protect individual liberty and limit the size and scope of government. If anything, a constitutional convention would more than likely undermine those protections and increase the size and scope of the federal government<\/em><\/strong> rather than impose any meaningful limitations on its jurisdiction, as the resolution purportedly seeks to accomplish. <\/p>

The massive expansion of government and growing infringements on our liberties are not because of \u201cproblems\u201d or \u201cflaws\u201d 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 percent of the federal government\u2019s programs would likely be found unconstitutional. This fact negates any reason for convening an Article V convention today. The correct solution is constitutional enforcement, not a constitutional convention.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>

Rather than passing Article V convention applications, which risk a runaway convention threatening our God-given rights and individual liberty, the Legislature should consider <\/em><\/strong>Article VI<\/em><\/strong><\/a> and nullify unconstitutional laws.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>

Furthermore, state lawmakers should also rescind 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 senator to oppose LR 31, LB 195, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider <\/em><\/mark><\/strong>nullification<\/em><\/strong><\/a> as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.<\/em><\/mark><\/strong><\/p>

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