{"id":95588,"date":"2023-02-09T11:32:54","date_gmt":"2023-02-09T17:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=95588"},"modified":"2024-03-08T11:47:38","modified_gmt":"2024-03-08T17:47:38","slug":"oppose-kansas-article-v-con-con-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/oppose-kansas-article-v-con-con-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Stop Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions in Kansas"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image-box\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>\n\n

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

URGENT ACTION NEEDED:<\/mark> SCR 1609, a disastrous and reckless resolution applying to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the federal Constitution has been passed out of committee, could be voted on by the Kansas Senate as soon as Monday, March 11, at 2:30 pm.<\/strong> Although the Kansas Constitution requires Article V Con-Con resolutions to pass with two-thirds support in both chambers, pro-Con-Con supporters are pursuing judicial activism and trying to strike down<\/a> this provision in federal court.<\/em> Please contact your state legislators, and urge them to oppose SCR 1609 and all other applications for an Article V constitutional convention.<\/i><\/mark><\/span><\/p>

Members of the Kansas Legislature are seeking to pass multiple resolutions making application 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<\/a>,\u201d as some erroneously refer to it.<\/p>

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1607 (SCR 1607<\/a>) follows 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 officials of the federal government and members of the Congress of the United States.” (HCR 5008<\/a>, another COS resolution, had been introduced, but thankfully, it failed<\/a> to reach the two-thirds majority threshold to pass in a vote on March 22.)<\/em><\/p>

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1609 (SCR 1609<\/a>) urges 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 of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.\u201d (HCR 5005<\/a>, also for term limits, had been introduced, but thankfully, it failed<\/a> to reach the two-thirds majority threshold to pass in a vote on March 8.)<\/em><\/p>

Additionally, Senate Bill No. 92 (SB 92<\/a>), Senate Bill No. 385 (SB 385<\/a>), and House Bill No. 2807 (HB 2807<\/a>) have been introduced. They seek to regulate the appointment and conduct of delegates to prevent a runaway convention. These bills would be completely useless<\/a> at preventing a runaway convention<\/strong> \u2014 for example, they don’t regulate delegates from other states, and don’t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted<\/a> to limit delegates’ authority). The bills would merely create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control.<\/p>

Changing the Legislative Rules<\/strong><\/h3>

Convention of States (COS) and other supporters of an Article V constitutional convention sought to change the Kansas Legislature\u2019s rules to require a simple majority to approve resolutions applying for a Con-Con \u2014 even though Article 2, Section 13, of the Kansas Constitution<\/a> explicitly requires a two-thirds vote for such resolutions.<\/p>

At the beginning of the session, the Kansas Legislature removed the two-thirds requirement from the legislative rules. This will invite a lawsuit, in which COS will try to strike down that portion of the Kansas Constitution using leftist judicial-activist reasoning.<\/p>

If COS wants to blatantly ignore an explicit provision of the Kansas Constitution, how can we trust it to uphold the U.S. Constitution?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>

Dangers of a Con-Con<\/strong><\/h3>

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

On December 9, 2021, constitutionalist 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>

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>

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>

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><\/blockquote>

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>

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 Kansas Legislature should consider <\/em><\/strong>Article VI<\/em><\/strong><\/a> and <\/em><\/strong>nullify<\/em><\/strong><\/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 all 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