Stop New Hampshire Article V Con-Con Resolution HCR 8

URGENT: New Hampshire legislators have introduced HCR 8, a blatantly leftist Article V Con-Con resolution calling for restrictions to free speech. Contact your state legislators, and urge them to oppose HCR 8 and all other resolutions applying for an Article V convention.

Members of the New Hampshire General Court are seeking to pass resolutions 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 refer to it.

House Concurrent Resolution 8 (HCR 8) has bipartisan support in the General Court. It applies for a convention to propose constitutional amendments to address “issues raised by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 130 S.Ct. 876 and related cases and events.” If passed, this resolution would be considered along with the existing Wolf-PAC applications of three other states (although the resolution erroneously names five states—two of those since rescinded their applications).

The Wolf-PAC Con-Con application is interesting because unlike most other Article V convention applications, it is sponsored and supported by liberals and claim to seek liberal 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.

This resolution 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.

House Bill 269 (HB 269) and House Bill 392 (HB 392) have also been introduced. They would ostensibly regulate the conduct of delegates to a convention and are designed to give false assurance that a convention won’t get out of control. Such bills would be completely useless at preventing a runaway convention — for example, they don’t regulate delegates from other states, and don’t prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted to limit delegates’ authority).

House Concurrent Resolution 1 (HCR 1) and House Concurrent Resolution 4 (HCR 4) were previously introduced. On February 23, 2023, the House rejected HCR 1 by a 156-192 vote. Also, on March 16, 2023, the House rejected HCR 4 by a 145-224 vote.

Any Article V convention 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. 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 New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire General Court 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.

Above all, urge your state representative and senator to oppose HCR 8, HB 392, HB 269, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.