Stop Florida Federal Constitutional Convention Resolutions HCR 693 & HCR 703

URGENT; ACT NOW: Con-Con resolutions HCR 693 and HCR 703 have been fast-tracked for floor votes in the Florida House of Representatives on Tuesday, January 9 — the first day of the 2024 legislative session. Why is the Legislature rushing to enact these disastrous resolutions with little debate or publicity?

Please call and email your state representative and senator, and urge them to oppose HCR 693 and HCR 703, as well as every other resolution applying for a disastrous Article V constitutional convention.

Members of the Florida Legislature 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 a “convention of the states,” as some erroneously call it.

House Concurrent Resolution 693 (HCR 693) and House Concurrent Resolution 703 (HCR 703) have been introduced.

HCR 703 applies for a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) “requiring that, in the absence of a national emergency, the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year.” Meanwhile, HCR 693 urges Congress to call a convention to propose a constitutional amendment “to set a limit on the number of terms to which a person may be elected as a member of the [U.S. House and Senate].”

The Florida Legislature has already passed BBA (2010 and 2014) and term-limits (2016) applications. However, according to The Floridian, HCR 693 and HCR 703 were introduced because of fears that Florida’s existing applications are worded in a way that opens the door to a runaway convention.

Despite legislators’ intentions, the truth is that any Article V convention could lead to a runaway convention reversing 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. Meanwhile, term limits would do nothing to limit the federal government or improve our representation. They would throw out the best congressmen along with the worst while ignoring the most serious problems our nation faces, including fiscally-irresponsible policies and lack of adherence to the Constitution.

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 Florida 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 on X:

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 Florida 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 HCR 693, HCR 703, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.