Stop Deceptive COS Con-Con Applications in Iowa

In the above exclusive interview with The New American, state Representative Helena Hayes (R-Iowa) relays her personal story of how a Convention of States Project (COS) leader and co-founder contacted her and attacked The John Birch Society. During the phone conversation, he also character assassinated JBS Constitutional educator and speaker Robert Brown as being a “house painter,” who lacks the credentials and letters behind his name to understand Article V and the Constitution. Yet this so-called “house painter” is kicking his and COS’s butts so much so that they are resorting to childish name-calling and personal attacks rather than debating the substance of the issue, whether or not the Iowa General Assembly should apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose changes, or amendments, to the U.S. Constitution.

In the interview, Rep. Hayes also shares her shock about how COS put her personal cellphone number in a mass text blast sent to her constituents to contact and pressure her into supporting the COS resolution House Joint Resolution 7, which applies to Congress to call a constitutional convention.

Rep. Hayes further expresses her disappointment with COS-sponsored events that she has attended, in which COS speakers again spend more time attacking groups that oppose a convention, such as The John Birch Society and various JBS speakers, rather than utilizing the time to explain the process of an Article V convention or to educate attendees about the alleged merits of a constitutional convention (Con-Con) to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Hayes concludes the interview explaining her opposition to HJR 7, the COS Con-Con resolution, and of the idea of using an Article V convention to rein-in the federal government.

Click either the video above or HERE to watch the interview with state Representative Hayes.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED: The 2023 Iowa legislative session has been extended — now, it is scheduled to end on Friday, May 5. COS Con-Con resolutions HJR 7 and SJR 7, and delegate bill HF 336, are still pending in the General Assembly and could still possibly pass before the session ends — and if they pass, we’ll be one step closer to losing our Constitution. Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose these disastrous bills and resolutions!

Iowa state legislators are seeking to pass resolutions applying to Congress to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as a federal constitutional convention (Con-Con) or “convention of states,” as some erroneously refer to it.

House Joint Resolution 7 (HJR 7), Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 1), Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR 7) follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) Project application to Congress to call a constitutional convention. An explanation of the resolutions, contained in HJR 7, SJR 1, and SJR 7 reads:

This joint resolution constitutes an application requesting the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention in order to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials and for members of Congress. The resolution constitutes a continuing application to call a constitutional convention.

Additionally, Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2) and Senate Joint Resolution 5 (SJR 5) also apply to Congress for a constitutional convention along the lines of the Convention of States Project model resolution, though it uses slightly different language than HJR 7, SJR 1, and SJR 7. Both SJR 1 and SJR 2 have been assigned to the Senate State Government committee.

House File 336 (HF 336; originally numbered HF 34) also has been introduced. HF 336 is designed to give false assurance that a convention won’t get out of control, doing this by ostensibly regulating the appointment and conduct of delegates (referred in the bill as “commissioners”). Such a bill would be completely useless at preventing a runaway convention — for example, HF 336 doesn’t regulate delegates from other states, and it doesn’t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted to limit delegates’ authority).

These vaguely-worded resolutions claim that the constitutional convention is only “for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing amendments” about the topics mentioned, reiterating “and no amendments on any other topic” may be proposed beyond the topics listed. However, in reality, any Article V constitutional convention cannot be limited, resulting in a runaway convention that would reverse many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference.

In other words, any Article V convention 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 that would have massively increased the federal government and expanded 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, what kind of delegates would Iowa 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.

Watch Constitutional expert Robert Brown’s presentation “The Harsh Reality of a ‘Convention of States’” for the truth that COS Project doesn’t want you to know.

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, the Iowa General Assembly should consider Article VI and nullify unconstitutional laws.

Furthermore, state lawmakers should also consider rescinding any and all previously passed Article V convention applications to Congress, regardless of the desired amendment(s). Passing rescission resolutions will help prevent aggregating past Article V convention applications with those from other states to force Congress to call a convention.

Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose HJR 7, SJR 1, SJR 2, SJR 5, SJR 7, HF 336, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.