{"id":154923,"date":"2024-03-08T07:14:57","date_gmt":"2024-03-08T13:14:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=154923"},"modified":"2024-03-08T07:15:01","modified_gmt":"2024-03-08T13:15:01","slug":"stop-deceptive-mississippi-con-con-commissioner-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/stop-deceptive-mississippi-con-con-commissioner-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Stop Deceptive Mississippi Con-Con \u201cCommissioner\u201d Resolution HCR 48"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

URGENT:<\/mark><\/strong> The Mississippi Legislature is considering a deceptive resolution intended to give state legislators false confidence in a disastrous Article V constitutional convention \u2014 a first step toward deceiving them into applying for a convention. Please contact your state legislators, and urge them to oppose this resolution.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

House Concurrent Resolution No. 48 (HCR 48<\/a>) has been introduced. It seeks to regulate the appointment and conduct of delegates (titled \u201ccommissioners\u201d in the bill) to prevent a runaway convention.\u00a0This resolution would be\u00a0<\/strong>completely useless<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0at preventing a runaway convention<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 for example, it doesn\u2019t regulate delegates from other states, and doesn\u2019t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states\u00a0also attempted<\/a>\u00a0to limit delegates\u2019 authority). The bill would merely create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    \n
  1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. There is no provision for how rules would be established.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.<\/li>\n\n\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\n\n
  13. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.<\/li>\n\n\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\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\n\n
  16. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.<\/li>\n\n\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\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 convention (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. The same scenario is true of a proposed amendment was 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>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Any Article V convention<\/a> could lead to a\u00a0runaway convention<\/a> reversing 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\u00a02016<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a02023\u00a0simulated \u201cConvention of States\u201d<\/a>\u00a0resulted in amendments massively increasing the federal government and expanding its spending powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.\u201d<\/strong> Furthermore, what kind of delegates would Mississippi send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    \n

    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>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    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>\n\n\n\n

    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 Mississippi Legislature should consider <\/em><\/strong>Article VI<\/em><\/strong><\/a> and <\/em><\/strong>nullify<\/em><\/strong><\/a> unconstitutional laws.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose HCR 48 and all other pro-Article V convention legislation and to instead <\/mark><\/strong>consider nullification<\/strong><\/a> as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

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