Stop Maine Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions SP 10 and SP 173

Members of the Maine Legislature are seeking to pass resolutions applying to Congress to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a federal constitutional convention (Con-Con) or “convention of the states.”

Senate Paper 10 (SP 10) would make two separate applications for conventions to propose a congressional term-limits amendment and an amendment establishing term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Meanwhile, Senate Paper 173 (SP 173) would apply for a convention “to regulate the role of money in elections and governance,” effectively overruling the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If passed, this application would be considered along with the existing Wolf-PAC applications of three other states (although the resolution erroneously names five states — two of those have since rescinded their applications).

Additionally, House Paper 688 (HP 688) would ostensibly regulate the appointment and conduct of delegates (titled “commissioners” in the bill) to prevent a runaway convention. This bill would be completely useless at preventing a runaway convention — for example, it doesn’t regulate delegates from other states, and doesn’t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted to limit delegates’ authority). The bill would merely create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control.

Unlike most other Article V convention applications, the Wolf-PAC Con-Con application is sponsored and supported by leftists and claims to seek leftist policy outcomes, namely campaign finance “reform” that would restrict the First Amendment. As Joe Wolverton’s 2015 TNA article “Citizens United for Free Speech” points out, a Wolf-PAC Con-Con would have a detrimental effect on free speech and the individual liberty of ordinary Americans.

SP 173 and other Wolf-PAC resolutions illustrate the danger of a Con-Con, particularly that the Left supports a Con-Con and would use one to curtail our God-given liberties.

Any Article V convention, no matter how well intentioned, 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, both a 2016 and 2023 simulated “Convention of States” 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. 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 Maine send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates and liberals?

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.

Goldwater 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.

When speaking to your legislators, emphasize the following irrefutable facts about an Article V convention for proposing amendments:

1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.
2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.
3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.
4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.
5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.
6. There is no provision for how rules would be established.
7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.
8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.
9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.
10. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
11. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
12. There is no means provided for either the states or the people to challenge Congress’s choice of the method of ratification.
13. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.
14. The acceptance by one Congress of a state application for a convention does not bind subsequent Congresses from accepting that application.
15. Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application.
16. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.
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.
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.
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).

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 Maine Legislature 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 SP 10, SP 173, HP 688, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.