Please forward to Friends!
February 25, 2013
Calls Needed Immediately
House of Representatives States’ Rights Committee
to ask for a
HJR1016 – Convention for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
HB1530 – Gateway to an Amendments Convention (Con Con)
- Vote NO on HJR 1016. Do not put our Constitution at risk by asking Congress to “call a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.” Have you witnessed the ferocious battles in Congress over the Congress’s out-of-control spending? Can you imagine what that same battle would entail in an Article V Convention (Con Con)? Such a convention could put our whole Constitution at risk as the “amendments convention” considers multiple versions and multiple 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.
- Vote NO on HB 1530, which is an empty attempt to limit delegates at an Article V Convention (Con Con). This so-called “Delegate Limitation Act” will only apply to delegates from Oklahoma, and not stop a runaway Article V Convention (Con Con).
Emails for the House of Representatives States’ Rights Committee
Dustin.Roberts@okhouse.gov, Tommy.Hardin@okhouse.gov, Ken.firstname.lastname@example.org, Jason.Murphey@okhouse.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, MikeShelton@okhouse.gov, Kevin.Matthews@okhouse.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Phone Numbers for the House of Representatives States’ Rights Committee
Chair, Rep. Lewis H. Moore (405) 557-7400
Vice Chair, Rep. Sean Roberts (405) 557-7322
Rep. Ed Cannaday (405) 557-7375
Rep. Kay Floyd (405) 557-7396
Rep. Kevin Matthews (405) 557-7406
Rep. Mike Shelton (405) 557-7367
Rep. Dan Fisher (405) 557-7311
Rep. Elise Hall (405) 557-7403
Rep. Jason Murphey (405) 557-7350
Rep. Ken Walker (405) 557-7359
Rep. Tommy Hardin (405) 557-7383
Rep. Dustin Roberts (405) 557-7366
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger
warns of runaway Convention
June 22, 1988
“I have also 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. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’”
Analysis from Phyllis Schlafly:
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is one organization pushing for an Article V Convention, and it sent a long article to every legislator making several false assumptions.
- The ALEC article assumes that an Article V convention will be based on one state = one vote. There is no reason to assume that, since Article V gives Congress the power to issue the Call, and Congress can call a convention apportioned on the basis of population, like Congress itself. We won’t know how this will be decided until Congress issues the Call. The article says the convention itself, after it meets, can change the voting strength of states; but that makes no sense.
- The ALEC article repeatedly uses the term “amendmentS” plural – just as Article V does – so ALEC accepts the proposition that more than one amendment can be passed by the convention and sent out to the states for ratification.
- The ALEC article assumes that Congress must call a convention based on resolutions from 34 states even though they call for passing different amendments. Nevertheless, the article assumes the convention will be limited to passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.
- The ALEC article presents only two arguments about how we would be protected against the danger of an Article V convention passing amendments other than a Balanced Budget Amendment (a so-called runaway convention).
- They want every state to pass a second resolution called the “Delegate Limitation Act” to bind the delegates to limit themselves to the subject matter of a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, such a resolution could bind only the delegates from that state. That state’s delegates could be called back home, but that would leave the convention in the hands of the remaining delegates.
- They claim we would be protected from the convention doing anything foolish like repealing the Bill of Rights by the delegates’ fear of loss of their reputation and political career. ALEC’s ridicule of the runaway convention argument is particularly insulting to the distinguished Americans who have warned against it, including Chief Justice Warren Burger and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
The ALEC article doesn’t address fundamental problems with the Balanced Budget Amendment, such as:
- Balanced Budget Amendments of individual states are not a model for a federal amendment because the states cannot print money to cover their deficits.
- The Balanced Budget doesn’t deal with the overspending problems caused by the Federal Reserve System, or by coining a Trillion Dollar Coin.
- The Balanced Budget Amendment exempts periods of wartime, but the U.S. has been continually at war since Desert Storm in 1991.
- The Balanced Budget Amendment gives an extraordinary new constitutional power to the President to “propose” (write the first draft of) the federal budget. Why would we want to give Obama an important new constitutional power?
The ALEC article assumes that various conventions before 1789 would be Precedents for an Article V convention today. But they all took place before Article V existed, so they cannot be a Precedent. The sole authority for an Article V convention is the text of Article V.