Alert Summary

Members of the Ohio General Assembly are seeking to pass HJR 3 and SJR 1, 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 Now

Contact your Representative

Please help stop HJR 3 and SJR 1 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.

Take Action Now

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.

image-box

URGENT: The Ohio Government Oversight Committee has scheduled a hearing on HJR 3 for Tuesday, November 14, at 1:00 pm EST. This hearing is for the legislative sponsors to testify; in subsequent hearings, bill proponents and opponents will testify.

We also encourage you to call the House offices of the members of the Government Oversight Committee and urge them to oppose and vote NO on HJR 3. Listed below are the names and phone numbers for the most important committee members:

Contact your state representative and senator, and urge them to oppose HJR 3 and SJR 1.

Members of the Ohio General Assembly are seeking to pass a resolution 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,” as some erroneously refer to it.

House Joint Resolution No. 3 (HJR 3) 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 its officials and Members of Congress of the United States.”

Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 (SJR 1) has also 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].”

HJR 3 and SJR 1 claim they 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.

And in 2018, constitutionalist U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted:

I don’t support a COS.  If my colleagues won’t follow the present constitution, why would they follow a new one?

In another tweet on December 30, 2022, Rep. Massie correctly noted that:

Repeal of the [16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act] would obviate any need or want for a term limit amendment and a balanced budget amendment.

The document our founders gave us was genius, and we tamper with it at our own peril.

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.”

And in 1979, the then-U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), correctly warned about a 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.

Additionally, 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, Republican 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.

Furthermore, an Article V 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, as the resolution purportedly seeks to accomplish.

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 applied 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 3, SJR 1, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.

“No Guarantee” at an Article V Constitutional Convention

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.