Oppose Connecticut Article V Con-Con Resolutions

Members of the Connecticut General Assembly are seeking to pass resolutions applying to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments, under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con).

Plenary Convention

House Joint Resolution No. 23 (HJR 23) is one of the introduced resolutions. It merely states:

Resolved by this Assembly: That the General Assembly apply to the United States Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Additionally, the resolution includes a “Statement of Purpose,” which reads: “To petition the United States Congress to convene an Article V convention.” HJR 23 is an application for a plenary convention, also known as a general, open, or unlimited convention.

At first glance, it is odd that Connecticut lawmakers would want to apply to Congress to call a plenary (general/open) constitutional convention until one realizes that this application is part of a larger scheme to force a convention in conjunction with the applications from other states to Congress for a convention to propose a federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution.

Advocates for a convention to propose a BBA Con-Con are plotting to force Congress to call a convention by aggregating the 26 “live,” or active, BBA Con-Con applications with applications for a plenary constitutional convention, most of which are over a century old.

This scheme is being promoted by an organization called the Let Us Vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment Citizen’s Campaign, co-founded by David Biddulph in 2019. On July 31, 2020, the Associated Press reported about a presentation Biddulph gave at a workshop for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) promoting the new scheme. The AP reported, “The new plan, presented during the ALEC workshop with a PowerPoint presentation from conservative activist David Biddulph, is to take the 28 state resolutions seeking a balanced budget amendment and combine them with six state resolutions passed over the last two centuries generally seeking a constitutional convention.” (Emphasis added).

“The oldest of those was a resolution passed by New York in 1789, according to a 2018 article on the conservative Federalist Society’s website by constitutional scholar Robert G. Natelson,” AP explained.

Biddulph intends to force an Article V Con-Con to propose his coveted BBA by way of states suing Congress to aggregate the applications for both a BBA and a general convention. According to the AP, “Biddulph proposed recruiting state attorneys general to file a legal order demanding that Congress recognize the 34 state resolutions and convene a constitutional convention. If Congress refuses, the AGs would sue in federal court.” Biddulph reportedly told the AP that a lawsuit was the “best shot” for getting Congress to call a convention.

Term-limits Con-Con

Additionally, House Joint Resolution No. 24 (HJR 24) and Senate Joint Resolution No. 15 (SJR 15) would apply to Congress for a convention to propose a congressional term-limits amendment.

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.

Dangers of a Con-Con

Any 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 Connecticut send to such a convention?

On December 9, 2021, 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.

An Article V constitutional convention is unnecessary to protect individual liberty and limit the size and scope of government. If anything, a constitutional convention would more than likely undermine those protections and increase the size and scope of the federal government rather than impose any meaningful limitations on its jurisdiction. The massive expansion of government and growing infringements on our liberties are not because of “problems” or “flaws” with the Constitution, but rather due to misinterpretation, wrongful application, or lack of enforcement altogether.

If the Constitution was adhered to faithfully and accurately, in accordance with its original meaning, at least 80 percent of the federal government’s programs would likely be found unconstitutional. This fact negates any reason for convening an Article V convention today. The correct solution is constitutional enforcement, not a constitutional convention.

Rather than passing Article V convention applications, which risk a runaway convention threatening our God-given rights and individual liberty, the 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 23, HJR 24, SJR 15, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.