Alert Summary
Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly are seeking to pass SR 77, HR 106, HR 37, HR 183, SR 51, and SR 52, which would apply to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con).
Take Action NowContact your Representative
Please help stop SR 77, HR 106, HR 37, HR 183, SR 51, and SR 52 by contacting your state legislators. Urge them to oppose an Article V constitutional convention and to vote against all resolutions calling for one. Inform them of the dangers of a Con-Con and of the benefits of using nullification instead.
Clicking this button will take you to a page where you can send a pre-written letter, call your officials, and/or send video messages.
URGENT; ACT NOW: The Pennsylvania General Assembly is back in session, and there is a large risk that it could consider and pass Article V Con-Con applications. Convention of States (COS) and other pro-Con-Con groups are working incessantly to pass their preferred solutions — and these “conservatives” are even working to gain leftist Democrat support! Hearings for the resolutions listed below could be scheduled any time with little notice.
For example, Democrat state lawmakers introduced a resolution in the Pennsylvania General Assembly applying to Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Sponsored solely by Democrats, Con-Con resolution HR 183 would make two separate applications: one for a convention to propose a congressional term-limits amendment, and second, to establish term-limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices (which would term out the “conservative” majority more quickly). HR 183 is another example of how the Left wants a Con-Con too in order to advance its radical agenda, and it’s imperative that these efforts are defeated. Contact your state representative and senator, and urge them to oppose all Article V Con-Con resolutions in Pennsylvania.
Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly are seeking to pass a resolution 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 call it.
Several resolutions have been introduced:
- Senate Resolution No. 77 (SR 77) and House Resolution No. 106 (HR 106) follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (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.”
- House Resolution No. 37 (HR 37) applies to Congress to call a convention to propose a constitutional amendment “to limit the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the [U.S. House and Senate].”
- Senate Resolution No. 51 (SR 51) applies to Congress to call a convention to propose a countermand amendment, which would “allow” two-thirds of the states to override federal actions (even though states can already do that via nullification). Meanwhile, Senate Resolution No. 52 (SR 52) create useless guidelines for delegates attending a convention to propose such an amendment.
- House Resolution No. 183 (HR 183) applies to Congress to call conventions 1) to propose a congressional term-limits amendment and 2) to create term limits for justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
These resolutions claim they are “limited to” the various listed topics. However, 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, 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, what kind of delegates would Pennsylvania 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, the Pennsylvania 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 SR 77, HR 106, HR 37, HR 183, SR 51, SR 52, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.
Although we provide a way to easily email legislators, we know from long experience that it takes a lot more interaction with your legislators to get your point across than that provided by emails alone.
That's why we provide an easy way not only to email them, but to contact them by phone, tweet, and even video message them.