NH hasn’t passed an Article V Convention Application because I keep killing them, and I’ll do it again.
You may have heard various groups calling for a “Convention of States”, as they call it. They claim that if we pass a “Convention of States Application”, we’d be able to pass a variety of constitutional amendments to fix up problems we see, from term limits to balanced budget amendments to whatever your heart can imagine.
To the layman, this sounds like a great idea. After all, who wouldn’t love to kick out aging senators like Bernie Sanders? Who could oppose a balanced budget?
I’m about to start my 3rd term in the NH House, and I went from having no idea what an Article V Convention was several years ago to being the guy who routinely and regularly goes to the floor to murder any Article V Constitutional Convention Application that shows up. It isn’t because I hate term limits, it isn’t because I hate balanced budgets, but it’s because I love the US Constitution and know that “Convention of States” is just marketing smoke-screen over the true goal: Repealing our entire Constitution and replacing it with whatever globalists and communists can agree upon betwixt each other. It is, to put it bluntly, the biggest clandestine threat to American sovereignty that exists in state-level politics, and I see it as not just a duty, but a joy to ensure that these applications will never leave the NH House.
But what is an Article V Constitutional Convention?
An Article V Constitutional Convention (Con-Con for short) is a method in the current US Constitution whereby Congress can call a convention for discussing amendments. It is, essentially, the “Kill Switch” on our Constitution; it was put in to ensure that if the US Constitution wasn’t a great way to run a nation then there would be a legal means to eliminate it and replace it with something better. Since our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, it was important for them to include this as a way to make the constitution legitimate.
However, what the proponents of these Con-Cons don’t tell people is that there is no way that exists to contain a Con-Con to a specific topic, or require amendments be added in the way Congressional amendments historically have been. They could, and probably would, just re-write the whole thing. You may say, “But that isn’t an amendment”, but to you I’d reply that we do this all the time in the NH House. It’s called a “Full Re-Write Amendment”, and it is adopted in the same way any other bill amendments are adopted.
Proponents of Con-Cons will say that such a convention would require ratification by 38 states in order for any new constitution to be valid. What they don’t mention is that the Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval of all states in order for amendments to be ratified. That’s not what happened 250 years ago, Rhode Island boycotted the Convention and the new Constitution (our current Constitution) was put into place without them. The logic was that a Constitutional Convention practices the full sovereignty of The People, and therefore cannot be limited by any constitution whatsoever.
If it happened then, it can happen now.
This means that if we had a Con-Con today, the Convention delegates could create their own ratification threshold. For instance, they could (and probably would) pass a Constitution that curtails the rights of people to keep and bear arms, guarantees their right to an abortion, and enacts a National Popular Vote. They could then set the ratification threshold to a simple majority of a Popular Vote in order for the new Constitution to take effect.
We’d get what every Globalist ever wanted: The Death of the US as we know it in favor of a centralized government without checks and balances. The US would become a cog in the globalist empire, yet another EU to dominate and regulate into impoverished servitude.
Some may say, “But wouldn’t the Supreme Court find fault in that?”
The answer is that it doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution. The new Constitution could establish a new Supreme Court set up in a different way, or merely a tribunal of international lobbying interests to serve as a “Supreme Court”. It could even just get rid of the Supreme Court entirely.
You may ask, “Couldn’t that lead to civil war?”
I believe it probably would, yes. The Civil War of the 1860s was started after the Southern states held a Constitutional Convention. They drafted a new constitution creating a Confederacy. They ratified it. Several states joined in, and we had ourselves the deadliest war in American history. 150 years later, and the US is still not totally over it. A modern civil war over a constitutional convention could Balkanize the US. Instead of being the worlds premier global superpower, we’d be bickering fiefdoms fighting over resources. We’d be Europe. I don’t want to be Europe.
I suspect that a Constitutional Convention application will be up again for debate in the NH House. I suspect that, again, I will go down to the well and argue in favor of killing it. I hope that, yet again, I succeed in killing it.
To the Granite Grok readers, I implore you to reject calls to pass a so-called “Convention of States”. Defend the US Constitution, as it exists NOW, don’t try to change one of the greatest legal documents ever devised in pursuit of fancy baubles and empty promises that no one intends to actually keep.
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to say? We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
