{"id":97711,"date":"2023-03-08T15:49:14","date_gmt":"2023-03-08T21:49:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=97711"},"modified":"2024-01-23T17:34:39","modified_gmt":"2024-01-23T23:34:39","slug":"oppose-rhode-island-article-v-con-con-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/oppose-rhode-island-article-v-con-con-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Stop Rhode Island COS Con-Con Application H7182"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image-box\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>\n\n

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

Members of the Rhode Island 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 federal constitutional convention<\/a> (Con-Con) or \u201cconvention of states,\u201d as some erroneously refer to it.<\/p>

House Resolution No. 7182 (H7182<\/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 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>

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>

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 Furthermore, what kind of delegates would Rhode Island send to such a convention?<\/mark><\/span><\/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 Rhode Island General Assembly 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 H7182 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