Stop Article V Constitutional Convention Resolutions

ACT NOW: The 2024 state legislative sessions are approaching, and many states will be considering disastrous resolutions for an Article V constitutional convention. Already, the pro-Con-Con organization Convention of States (COS) has announced it will target Idaho and Iowa, and other states will be in play. Any Con-Con threatens the Constitution and the God-given freedoms it protects. For example, leftists (most recently California Governor Gavin Newsom) have regularly proposed amending the Constitution to gut the Second Amendment, and “conservative” COS board member Robert P. George has proposed his own “conservative constitution” that severely limits the God-given right to self-defense. Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose and rescind applications for an Article V Con-Con.

Lawmakers across the country are being beguiled into introducing and passing resolutions making application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution, known as a federal constitutional convention (Con-Con), Article V Convention, or a “convention of states” as some erroneously call it.

Given the current widespread lack of knowledge about the Constitution and understanding of the principles of liberty that undergird it, convening such a convention today is likely to result in far greater harm than any purported benefits — placing our entire U.S. Constitution and republican form of government at jeopardy. Rather than pushing resolutions that apply to Congress for an Article V Convention, instead encourage your state legislators to consider nullification to rein in big government and federal overreach. To safeguard the Constitution, urge your state legislators to oppose all Article V constitutional convention resolutions.

Last year, popular talk-radio host Glenn Beck, and longtime promoter of the Convention of States Project, officially changed his opinion about a Con-Con — once in favor, he announced on his show that he now opposes this dangerous idea.

On his September 15, 2022 show, Beck said:

I have been a supporter of the Article V Convention of States. I’ve been a pretty big supporter, vocal supporter. I’m reversing that today. Because after some real thought and prayer, we are not the people to open up this sacred document. We are not the people – that was a God-inspired document. That was divinely written. … Benjamin Franklin even said that.  

The very hand of God was involved in the writing of that document. Do you believe that we could send delegates to a convention today that would have that kind of inspiration, that when they got to an impasse, somebody would be there like Ben Franklin that would say, “Let’s pause and all go to church and pray.” They didn’t politick, they prayed.  

I am not for opening that constitution anymore. When we are the people, I’ll be for it again. … And I’m afraid it’s just going to take a massive beatdown of our country to get to that place. Someday we will be humble enough, we will recognize God, we will not be an enemy to God. We will not be so arrogant. And when we’re those people I will support the Convention of States. But I withdraw my support. And I’m sorry to say that, but I withdraw my support. … This Constitution is wholly inadequate for anyone other than a religious and moral people. We are not those people. And we should not stain this document.

You can listen to this segment in the episode titled Media Praises Biden for Solving a Problem He Created | Guests: Sen. Rand Paul & Alex Epstein | 9/15/22 @ https://www.glennbeck.com/st/podcast (beginning at 1:37:00)

Ultimately, Any Article V convention could lead to a runaway convention that would reverse many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference. In other words, a Con-Con could accomplish the same goals that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against. As evidence, a 2016 Convention of States (COS) controlled simulation resulted in amendments massively increasing the federal government and expanding its spending powers.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia understood the danger of a constitutional convention. While he voiced support for one at a 1979 event, 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 “this is not a good century to write a constitution.” Furthermore, assuming that the state legislatures would choose the delegates to an Article V constitutional convention, what kind of delegates would your state send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?

On December 9, 2021, constitutionalist U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), warning against a Con-Con, tweeted:

Show me a single state where Constitutionalists comprise a majority of the state legislature.

At this point in history, an Article V Convention of the States would be a disaster.

In 1979, then-U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, correctly warned about an Article V convention:

If we hold a constitutional convention, every group in the country — majority, minority, middle-of-the-road, left, right, up, down — 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.

In addition to its unpredictable nature, an Article V convention also threatens U.S. national security. 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 warning of the perils convening a convention. Secretary Laird correctly noted that such a convention’s “scope and authority aren’t defined or limited by the Constitution.” Of the implications of holding such a convention, Laird warned: 

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’ confidence in our constitutional integrity and would weaken not only our economic stability but the stability of the free world. That’s a price we cannot afford.

Both Goldwater and Laird considered an Article V Convention threatening to the continuity of the United States’ republican form of government. It would be foolhardy and downright reckless to disregard these and other legitimate concerns.

An Article V convention possesses the inherent power to propose any changes to the U.S. Constitution, including drafting and proposing an entirely new “modern” (i.e. socialist) constitution. Instead, every state should consider Article VI and nullify unconstitutional laws.

If you live in a state with “live” Con-Con applications, contact your state legislators and urge them to rescind them. And if you live in a state where legislatures are currently debating — or will soon debate — application resolutions, urge them to defeat those resolutions.

Finally, regardless of which state you live in, inform your legislators about the constitutional tool of nullification — the real solution to an out-of-control federal government — and urge them to enact strong nullification legislation.

Whether your state has previously passed and has a “live” application to Congress to call a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment (BBA) or not, your state is likely still the target of other organizations advocating for an Article V convention to propose different amendments.

Such non-BBA proposals include amendments to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government (such as a debt limitation amendment), limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose term limits on both members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, limiting free speech by way of mandating publicly funded elections and overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v FEC, and more. Some of the well-known advocacy organizations for some of these proposed amendments include the Convention of States (COS) Project and Wolf-PAC.

Regardless of the perceived or potential merit of any one or more of these amendment proposals, the fact remains that such a convention, if and when convened, opens the Constitution to extensive rewrite or potentially to replace it altogether as the Articles of Confederation were at the original Philadelphia Convention in 1787.

Phone your state senator and representative (click here for phone numbers) and ask them to OPPOSE & VOTE AGAINST ANY ARTICLE V CONVENTION APPLICATION regardless of its stated intention or proposed amendment(s).

When calling the offices of your state legislators over the phone, here are some talking points:

I am opposed to any Article V convention based on three reasons:

1. The Constitution is not the problem. The real problem is our out-of-compliance-with-the-Constitution federal government.
2. All Article V conventions have the inherent power to be runaway conventions, because of the inherent right of the sovereign people to “to alter or abolish” our government as enshrined in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, we have no business convening Article V conventions especially when neither our elected federal officials nor our voters have the understanding and determination to enforce the Constitution we already have.
3. An Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to revise the Constitution in their favor (left or right). For over a century establishment special interests, or a Deep State if you will, have been influencing our elected officials to exercise powers not granted to them by the Constitution, while at the same time influencing voters to accept these usurpations of powers. An Article V convention would provide the opportunity for the special interests to rewrite the Constitution to legitimize a particular agenda that is inconsistent with the Constitution.

In conclusion: State legislatures and Congress should enforce the Constitution, not empower a convention that could rewrite it.