{"id":93844,"date":"2023-02-28T16:18:09","date_gmt":"2023-02-28T22:18:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=93844"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:42:04","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T17:42:04","slug":"oppose-georgia-article-v-con-con-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/oppose-georgia-article-v-con-con-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Oppose Georgia Article V Con-Con Resolutions HR 1043 and HR 257"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"image-box\"<\/div><\/div>
\n
<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

Members of the Georgia General Assembly are seeking to pass a resolution applying to Congress to \u201ccall a Convention for proposing Amendments,\u201d under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con) or \u201cconvention of the states,\u201d as some erroneously refer to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House Resolution 1043 (HR 1043<\/a>) and House Resolution 257 (HR 257<\/a>) have been introduced. They urge Congress to call a convention to propose a constitutional amendment \u201cto set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the [U.S. House and Senate].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These resolutions claim they are \u201cfor the sole and express purpose\u201d of congressional term limits. However, any convention, no matter how well intentioned, 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\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

Furthermore, term limits would do nothing to limit the federal government or improve our representation in Congress.<\/mark><\/strong> For example, they would throw out the best<\/a> congressmen along with the worst. Furthermore, term limits ignore the most serious problems<\/a> our nation faces, including fiscally-irresponsible policies and lack of adherence to the Constitution. In fact, we already have term limits \u2014 elections \u2014 while formal term limits on the U.S. president or in legislatures such as California, by contrast, have failed to rein in the executive branch of the federal government or the legislative branch of out-of-control state governments, respectively.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And in 2018, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I don\u2019t support a COS.  If my colleagues won\u2019t follow the present constitution, why would they follow a new one?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In another tweet on December 30, 2022, Massie correctly noted<\/a> that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Repeal of the [16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act] would obviate any need or want for a term limit amendment and a balanced budget amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The document our founders gave us was genius, and we tamper with it at our own peril.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\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 Georgia send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\n

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

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

A<\/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

In addition to its unpredictable nature, an Article V convention also threatens U.S. national security.<\/em><\/strong> In 1984, when the U.S. was only two states away from Congress calling a federal constitutional convention under the guise of proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird wrote an op-ed<\/a> warning of the perils convening a convention. Secretary Laird correctly noted that such a convention\u2019s \u201cscope and authority aren\u2019t defined or limited by the Constitution.\u201d Of the implications of holding such a convention, Laird warned:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

If a convention were called, our allies and foes alike would soon realize the new pressures imposed upon our republic. The mere act of convening a constitutional convention would send tremors throughout all those economies that depend on the dollar. It would undermine our neighbors\u2019 confidence in our constitutional integrity and would weaken not only our economic stability but the stability of the free world. That\u2019s a price we cannot afford.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Both Goldwater and Laird 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<\/a> 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 Georgia General Assembly 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

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>\n\n\n\n

Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose HR 1043, HR 257, 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>\n\n\n

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