Stop North Carolina Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions

URGENT; ACT NOW: Con-Con resolutions HJR 235 (COS) and HJR 151 (term limits), along with “Faithful Commissioner” bill HB 648, remain pending in the state Senate, having previously passed the House of Representatives. Contact your state legislators, especially your senator, and urge them to oppose all resolutions applying for a Con-Con.

Members of the North Carolina General Assembly 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 states,” as some erroneously refer to it.

House Joint Resolution 235 (HJR 235) and Senate Joint Resolution 628 (SJR 628) follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) Action/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 Joint Resolution 151 (HJR 151) and Senate Joint Resolution 487 (SJR 487) also have been introduced. It urges Congress to call a convention to propose a constitutional amendment “to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the [U.S. House and Senate].” Additionally, Senate Joint Resolution 506 (SJR 506) applies to Congress for a “countermand amendment.”

Also, House Bill 648 (HB 648), the “Faithful Article V Commissioner Act,” has been introduced. It 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, HB 648 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).

Each of these resolutions claims in some way that they only apply for “limited” conventions. 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.

Furthermore, term limits would do nothing to limit the federal government or improve our representation. For example, they would throw out the best congressmen along with the worst. Furthermore, term limits ignore the most serious problems our nation faces, including fiscally-irresponsible policies and lack of adherence to the Constitution. In fact, we already have term limits — elections — while formal term limits on the U.S. president, by contrast, have failed to rein in the executive branch.

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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina 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 235, SJR 628, HJR 151, SJR 487, SJR 506, HB 648, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.