I urge you to oppose LR 31, which would remove the sunset clause to Nebraska's application to Congress to call an Article V constitutional convention. The sunset clause was added in order to calm legitimate concerns that a runaway convention could happen. Why abandon and renege on this promise? Also, the fact that it's even necessary to remove the sunset clause shows that a convention is an unrealistic and unwise idea. Also, oppose LB 195. It would be completely useless at preventing a runaway convention -- for example, it doesn't regulate delegates from other states, and it doesn't prevent delegates from proposing an entirely new constitution (in the 1787 Convention, states also attempted to limit delegates' authority). The bill would merely create a false sense of security that a convention will not get out of control. Constitutionalists in all levels of government agree: the solution to our out-of-control federal government is Not an Article V constitutional convention, or so-called "convention of states;" please watch this under-3-minute-long video rumble.com/v28kh66-dont-be-conned-into-an-article-v-convention I don't care what specific changes to our Constitution these resolutions call for -- a Con-Con is a dangerous idea that could lead to unintended and harmful consequences. The solution is to enforce the Constitution through Article VI and the 10th Amendment, not to change it. Just because the Constitution isn't being enforced now, doesn't mean we should throw it away. Please oppose and vote against LR 31 and LB 195 -- and instead, rescind all of Nebraska's existing applications.

I implore you to stop the passage of LB 195, LR 31, and any other bill or resolution calling for an Article V convention, or "Con-Con." Instead, keep the sunset clause for Nebraska's existing convention application -- any convention, regardless of its stated topic, would be destructive to our country. Our Constitution is one of the few things that unites us. After all, it's been the law of the land longer than any other national constitution. Changing it will be very damaging and risks abandoning the principles that made our country great. Our founding fathers, including George Washington (in a 1788 letter to Richard Peters) and James Madison (in a 1788 letter to George Lee Turberville) opposed a second constitutional convention as it would divide the country and cause instability. More recently, the late Justice Antonin Scalia (in 2014 and 2015 interviews) expressed opposition. The language of LR 31, beyond specifying very-broad topic areas, is vague. A convention could go anywhere, and amendments could very likely be proposed that Article V convention proponents do not intend. Just as importantly, we don't even need an Article V convention to solve the problems facing our country. Many problems aren't because of "flaws" with our 230+-year-old constitution, but rather the fact that we haven't been following it consistently. In this case, please take a look at Article VI, which provides for the nullification of unconstitutional laws, rather than Article V. Ultimately, please oppose LB 195 and LR 31, support nullification instead, and keep the sunset clause.

I strongly request that you oppose LB 195 and LR 31, and to rescind all of Nebraska's existing applications for an Article V convention. They would have damaging and unintended consequences for our nation. The Senate only gained enough support to pass Nebraska's applications by adding a sunset clause -- so why now ignore that agreement? Also, removing the sunset clause is an admission by Convention of States (COS) that reaching 34 states will take many decades, if ever. So why waste time on a convention when much quicker and safer methods (i.e., nullification) are available? Ultimately, the socialist Left will hijack any Article V convention to push its agenda. Any amendment to the U.S. Constitution will need approval of three-fourths of the states. No doubt, the Left's support will be necessary for any amendment to become part of the constitution. I worry about what they will demand in exchange for an amendment. In the summer of 2020, we saw massive riots in America's inner cities. As James Madison wrote in a 1788 letter to George Lee Turberville, a second constitutional convention would stir up similar actions by extremist groups. The very premise behind an Article V convention is false -- it's that there are "problems" with the U.S. Constitution that can only be fixed by changing it. This isn't true -- rather, the problem is that we haven't actually been following the Constitution. The solution is to start abiding by the Constitution. I urge you to nullify every law that violates the Constitution. This is a much safer and appropriate place to start, rather than changing the Constitution. Accordingly, please oppose and vote against LB 195 and LR 31, and rescind all existing Article V Con-Con applications.

Please stop (and also rescind) every resolution that applies for an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, please oppose LB 195 and LR 31. Constitutionalists all across the country oppose an Article V Convention, see this short, 3-minute video: youtu.be/Q60OK1LmIKQ Nebraska's original convention application only passed when a sunset clause was added. It is dishonest and inappropriate to now turn back on this agreement. Also, the fact that a convention will take many decades to happen illustrates that it is a false and ineffective "solution." It's very important that you oppose LB 195. This bill won't prevent a "runaway convention." All it will do is create false confidence that a convention won't get out of control. An Article V convention (or "Con-Con") is unnecessary and will do harm to the U.S. Constitution. It is unnecessary because almost every problem or issue these applications seek to solve actually exist because we haven't been properly abiding by the Constitution -- not because of problems with the Constitution itself. A Con-Con is harmful because they could lead to damaging changes to the Constitution, such as those removing protections to our God-given freedoms, that Con-Con proponents did not intend. The risk of an "out-of-control" convention has historical precedent. The 1787 constitutional convention actually began as a "limited" convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. That convention produced a high-quality document, but we live in too divided of a time to draft a constitution equal to or superior to our current one. An Article V convention is unnecessary and dangerous. Please oppose LB 195, LR 31, and every other resolution calling for one -- and please rescind every existing application.

I urge you to oppose LB 195, LR 31, and all other attempts to apply for an Article V constitutional convention, also known as a Con-Con. Also, please rescind every existing application for a convention. Please oppose LB 195 -- this bill would be completely ineffective and merely give false assurance about the outcome of a convention. For example, it wouldn't control the behavior of other states' delegates. Any Con-Con could have damaging effects on our country. Our country is severely divided, and changing our most important national document could lead to massive unrest. James Madison made this point in a 1788 letter to George Lee Turberville. Among other noteworthy statements, he said: "[A] General Convention ... would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides." If the U.S. was divided then, it's much more so now. There's a reason why our Constitution has been our fundamental law longer than any other country in the world. It is one of the greatest documents, and we won't achieve anything superior to it through a constitutional convention. The resolution's language is very vague, meaning a Con-Con could still go in many different directions. If you have the time, please watch the following two videos: 1) three-minute video of some well-known Constitutionalists discussing such a convention: youtu.be/Q60OK1LmIKQ 2) ten minute video of Constitutional educator and expert Robert Brown debunking Senator Rick Santorum's claims: youtu.be/RgecUKL6_zU Please, watch those videos and and consider the Constitutionalist opposition to this disastrous idea of using an Article V constitutional convention or "convention of states." A Con-Con is an dangerous idea. To guard us against federal power-grabs, use Article VI, not Article V. Oppose LB 195 and LR 31, and rescind all existing applications for a convention.