URGENT; ACT NOW: South Carolina’s Article V Con-Con resolutions — S. 369, H. 3676 (BBA), S. 481, H.3895 (term limits), S. 391, H.4626, and H.4625 (delegate bills) — could be scheduled for hearings in their respective committees at any time, and at short notice. Contact your state representative and senator, and urge them to oppose these disastrous resolutions!
Members of the South Carolina 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 constitutional convention (Con-Con) or “convention of the states,” as some erroneously refer to it.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 369 (S.369) and House Concurrent Resolution 3676 (H.3676) apply to Congress for a convention to propose a so-called “Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Additionally, Senate Bill 391 (S.391) has been introduced; it would create guidelines to regulate the conduct of delegates to a convention. Although useless, this bill would create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control.)
A “balanced budget amendment” would have significant loopholes allowing for continued excessive federal spending while enabling further expansion of the federal government.
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. 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.” Furthermore, what kind of delegates would South Carolina send to such a convention? Constitutionalist conservatives or RINO moderates/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.
On February 26, 1979, shortly after the Arizona State Legislature passed an application to Congress applying for an Article V convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, then-U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) correctly warned:
I think it would be very foolhardy, it would be a tragic mistake, to hold a constitutional convention for this one purpose [of proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution]. I say it would be foolhardy and dangerous because 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 South Carolina 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, contact and urge your state representative and senator to defeat S.369, H.3676, S.481, and H.3895; to rescind every existing Con-Con application; and to instead consider nullification as a safe and constitutional means to limit government.
--------------------
Click "STOP THE BBA CON-CON!" to Stop the BBA Con-Con!!
