{"id":98068,"date":"2024-01-18T11:58:42","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T17:58:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=alert&p=98068"},"modified":"2025-01-06T15:17:09","modified_gmt":"2025-01-06T21:17:09","slug":"oppose-new-jersey-article-v-con-con-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"alert","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/alert\/oppose-new-jersey-article-v-con-con-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Oppose New Jersey Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image-box\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>\n\n

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

Members of the New Jersey Legislature are seeking to introduce and pass a resolution applying to Congress to \u201ccall a Convention for proposing Amendments,\u201d under Article V<\/a> of the Constitution, otherwise known as a federal constitutional convention<\/a> (Con-Con).<\/p>

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 70 (ACR 31<\/a>) is sponsored and co-sponsored by 16 assemblymen, while the identical Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 15 (SCR 15<\/a>) has also been introduced by seven senators. They follow the wording of Mark Meckler\u2019s Convention of States Project, or COS Project, application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments “that 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 for members of Congress.”<\/p>

Additionally, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 35 (SCR 35<\/a>) has been introduced. Sponsored by two senators, this resolution applies for a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), term limits on the Supreme Court and Congress, and changing the Electoral College so that Electoral votes are required to be allotted by congressional district.<\/p>

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 207 (AJR 207<\/a>) would call on Congress “to convene a constitutional convention to consider amending the federal Constitution to provide every person in this country the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization, and choose whether to carry a pregnancy, to give birth, or to terminate a pregnancy.”<\/p>

Senate Bill No. 3445 (S.3445<\/a>) and Assembly Bill No. 4907 (A.4907<\/a>) have also been introduced. This bill is designed to give false assurance that a convention won\u2019t get out of control, doing this by ostensibly regulating the appointment and conduct of delegates (labeled “commissioners” in the bill). Such a bill would be\u00a0completely useless<\/a>\u00a0at preventing a runaway convention \u2014 for example, the bills don\u2019t regulate delegates from other states, and it doesn\u2019t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states\u00a0also attempted<\/a>\u00a0to limit delegates\u2019 authority).<\/p>

ACR 31, SCR 15, SCR 35, and AJR 207 claim they are \u201cfor the limited purpose of\u201d their listed topics. However, any Article V 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.<\/em><\/strong> 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>

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

  1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.<\/li>\n\n
  2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.<\/li>\n\n
  3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.<\/li>\n\n
  4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.<\/li>\n\n
  5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.<\/li>\n\n
  6. There is no provision for how rules would be established.<\/li>\n\n
  7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.<\/li>\n\n
  8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.<\/li>\n\n
  9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.<\/li>\n\n
  10. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.<\/li>\n\n
  11. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.<\/li>\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
  13. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.<\/li>\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
  15. Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application.<\/li>\n\n
  16. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.<\/li>\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
  18. If 100 percent of registered voters opposed an amendment proposed by a convention, but the requisite number of state legislatures or ratifying conventions (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) supported it, then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people.<\/li>\n\n
  19. The same scenario is true if a proposed amendment were 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><\/ol>

    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 New Jersey send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>

    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>

    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>

    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 New Jersey 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 ACR 31, SCR 15, SCR 35, AJR 207, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification<\/a> as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>

    \n\t
    \n\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t