February 27, 2012
Please Forward this to everyone you know!
Final Senate VOTE: Monday: TODAY after 1:30:
Email or Call immediately!
OPPOSE SCR 1005 “Amendments Convention” or CON/CON
SCR 1005 passed out of the Committee of the Whole on Thursday, Feb. 23.
(see voting record below)
Contact these 3 Senators Immediately:
Judy Burges: 602-926-5861, [email protected]
(Senator Burges did not vote in the Committee of the Whole. Please ask her to vote NO on SCR 1005.)
Adam Driggs: 602-926-3016, [email protected]
(Senator Driggs voted for SCR 1005, but politely ask him to reconsider and vote NO)
Lori Klein: 602-926-5284, [email protected]
MESSAGE: Vote NO on SCR 1005. Do not put our Constitution at risk by asking Congress to “call a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.” Article V of the Constitution does not provide any way to limit an “amendments convention.” We don’t trust the politicians with our Constitution. (more information below)
“Occupy Wall Street” endorses Article V—Amendments Convention
This is how an Article V Convention can be hijacked.
Barry Goldwater said: "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue."
SCR1005 is a Call for a Constitutional Convention or an “amendments convention” to consider whether an increase in the federal debt should require approval from a majority of the legislatures of the states. Have you witnessed the ferocious battles in Congress over the debt ceiling? Can you imagine what that same battle would entail in a Constitutional Convention which could put our whole Constitution at risk as the “amendments convention” considers multiple versions and multiple amendments?
There is no way provided in Article V of the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of amendments which can be proposed in an “amendments convention,” even if the states, as in SCR1005, try to limit it. Article V states, “Congress…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” (that’s amendments in the plural).
The highest authority to ever speak on an amendments convention was Chief Justice Warren Burger. He said, “I have repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda…Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a ‘miracle.’ Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved…” .
Letter from retired Chief Justice Warren Burger opposing a Constitutional Convention, June 22, 1988
More information from Phyllis Schlafly on a Call for a Constitutional Convention:
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Applying to the congress of the United States to call a convention for proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.
Whereas, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides authority for a convention to be called by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution on application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states ("amendments convention"); and
Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Arizona favors the proposal and ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that will provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring: