Stop Maine Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions HP 1058 and SP 705

URGENT: Con-Con supporters are continuing to push for COS resolution HP 1058 and Wolf-PAC/term-limits hybrid resolution SP 705. If they cannot pass these dangerous resolutions this session, they will seek to have them carried over into the following session. Please contact you state legislators and urge them to oppose HP 1058 and SP 705.

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.”

House Paper 1058 (HP 1058) follows 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 Federal Government officials and members of Congress.”

Senate Paper 705 (SP 705) applies for 1) a convention to propose a congressional term-limits amendment and 2) a campaign finance reform amendment. Regarding a campaign finance reform amendment, SP 705 declares: “That the Legislature of Maine hereby applies to the Congress of the United States, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution, to call a convention of the states limited to proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution to regulate the role of money in elections and governance to ensure transparency, prevent corruption, protect against the buying of access to or influence over representatives and overturn the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases.”

Typically, congressional term limits Con-Con applications are backed by the purportedly conservative-leaning Term Limits USA organization, while campaign finance reform Con-Con applications to overturn the Citizens United case and regulate money in politics are backed by the leftist Wolf-PAC organization. The combination of both types of desired constitutional amendment proposals highlights the dangers of a both the left and right working together for convening a constitutional convention. It also underscores the fact that the left wants a Con-Con too to radically change the Constitution.

Senate Paper 600 (SP 600) was also introduced. It would have applied to Congress for a convention to proposed a so-called Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), which would require spending to not exceed revenue “in the absence of a national emergency.” The resolution stated that it would be considered alongside other BBA applications, including several that are rescinded and no longer relevant. Thankfully, the Legislature voted 12-20 against SP 600; the resolution is dead.

Although SP 600 states it “may not be aggregated with any applications on any other subject,” 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, a “balanced budget amendment” would have significant loopholes allowing for continued excessive federal spending while enabling further expansion of the federal government.

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 Maine 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 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 HP 1058, SP 705, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.