Please oppose HCR 48. Although this bill would ostensibly create guidelines for delegates to an Article V convention, in reality, it would be utterly useless. For example, it doesn't regulate delegates from other states, and 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. Here are some irrefutable facts about an Article V convention for proposing amendments: 1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention. 2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected. 3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate. 4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send. 5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention. 6. There is no provision for how rules would be established. 7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced. 8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process. 9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts. Constitutionalists in all levels of government agree, the solution is NOT an Article V constitutional convention, or so-called "convention of states" as several organizations and neoconservative politicians are misleading legislators into supporting (less than three-minute long video; please watch): rumble.com/v28kh66-dont-be-conned-into-an-article-v-convention Just because the Constitution isn't being enforced now, doesn't mean we should throw it away. Please watch the following short video, which explains this important issue in greater detail: youtu.be/VDbFxBxbw2I For more about why states should instead use nullification, please read the following article: thenewamerican.com/state-legislators-must-use-nullification-to-enforce-the-constitution/ Ultimately please oppose and vote against HCR 48.

I implore you to oppose HCR 48, as well as other legislation to create guidelines for delegates at a potential Article V constitutional convention. This bill might sound good, but it would not actually regulate the conduct of delegates. In other words, a runaway convention is still just as likely with this bill enacted. A Con-Con rests upon a false assumption -- that there are problems with the U.S. Constitution that can be fixed by changing it. In reality, no such problems exist. The Constitution robustly protects individual freedom, and there's a good reason why it has existed longer than every other national constitution. If the states successfully call a convention, it could very likely lead to amendments being proposed that nobody had previously suggested -- including amendments that change or severely limit the Bill of Rights. Here are five facts about how a runaway convention is a real threat with historical precedent: 1. Historical evidence such as The Federalist, No. 40, debunks claims that a runaway convention is unfounded; such an event has already occurred in history. James Madison himself acknowledged in Federalist 40 that the 1787 Constitutional Convention overstepped its mandate, creating a new Constitution and form of government. 2. Today's potential delegates (e.g., Gavin Newsom, George Soros, or Hillary Clinton) could use their influence to push personal agendas, far from the original intention of constitutional amendment. Similarly, delegates from states with strict gun laws could undermine the Second Amendment in the name of "safety" and "happiness." 3. Today's political climate -- rife with corruption, cronyism, and political factions -- heightens the risk of a convention being manipulated by special interests and wealthy and influential individuals. 4. Given the scarcity of true constitutionalists in state leadership, there's a significant risk regarding who would be chosen to amend the Constitution, and the irreversible damage they could inflict on both the Constitution and civil liberties. 5. Those selling a convention claim that corrupt politicians and politically-powerful people are at the heart of the tyrannical tack of the federal government, yet they deny that such corruption would have any sort of effect on a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Across the country, constitutionalists agree: Don't be duped into supporting a so-called "convention of states": (<3-minute long video; please watch): rumble.com/v28kh66-dont-be-conned-into-an-article-v-convention All told, a Con-Con is "a horrible idea," as Justice Antonin Scalia stated on May 8, 2015. Please oppose HCR 48 and other similar bills.

I strongly request that you oppose and vote against HCR 48. It would merely provide a false sense of security in an Article V constitutional convention. In reality, a runaway convention could still easily happen. Constitutionalists from all over the country, in local, state, and in the federal government oppose an Article V constitutional convention: rumble.com/v28kh66-dont-be-conned-into-an-article-v-convention.html The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. No other documents guarantees our liberties while also ensuring stability and protection of property. So why open up our Constitution for changes, something that could result in a horribly-worse document? 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. Please read this article for more information about how to enforce the Constitution and why that's the real solution: thenewamerican.com/us/politics/how-states-can-nullify-to-enforce-the-constitution/ Term limits are a very common reason for applying for an Article V Con-Con. However, term limits are merely a band-aid that would do more harm than good. Here are a few reasons why: 1. Term limits don’t tackle the fundamental issue of public understanding and responsibility for electing representatives. 2. Imposing term limits would limit the electoral choices of voters and potentially remove good, constitutionalist congressmen. 3. Imposing term limits contradicts the American government system established by the Founders. The Constitution's provision for frequent elections effectively serves as term limits, as intended by the Founders like James Madison. 4. Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 72, criticized the superficial appeal of term limits, a view applicable to many COS proposals. At the Constitutional Convention, Gouverneur Morris warned against term limits for their negative impact on motivation and good governance. 5. The Constitution already sets "good behavior" as a term limit for federal judges, with removal power vested in Congress. COS’s push to limit Supreme Court justices’ terms overlooks the existing constitutional provision and responsibility of Congress to impeach underperforming judges. 6. Effective governance can be achieved by enforcing the existing Constitution, not by amending it to limit terms. Please oppose HCR 48, as well as all resolutions for an Article V convention.

I urge you to oppose HCR 48, along with every other proposal for an Article V convention, constitutional convention/Con-Con, or "convention of states". This bill would fail to prevent a runaway convention, since it cannot control delegates from other states or prevent them from proposing a new constitution with a different mode of ratification. An Article V Con-Con is a dangerous idea because it could open a Pandora's box of amendments to our U.S. Constitution that could make it unrecognizable. Please consider the following well-accepted points about the problems with an Article V convention: 1. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call. 2. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call. 3. There is no means provided for either the states or the people to challenge Congress's choice of the method of ratification. 4. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state. 5. The acceptance by one Congress of a state application for a convention does not bind subsequent Congresses from accepting that application. 6. Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application. 7. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided. 8. The issues to be addressed at a convention to propose amendments would likely be moot by the time the challenges reached the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication. 9. If 100 percent of registered voters opposed an amendment proposed by a convention, but the requisite number of state legislatures or ratifying convention (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people. 10. The same scenario is true of a proposed amendment was approved by 100 percent of registered voters but rejected by the ratification conventions or state legislatures (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments). Please oppose HCR 48.

Please oppose and fully reject HCR 48. This bill is absolutely useless, since it won't regulate delegates from other states, and won't prevent them from possibly proposing an entirely new constitution. A Con-Con will not actually limit the federal government. There's also a real risk of an Article V convention resulting in unintended amendments and, perhaps, even a new constitution. Instead of pursuing an Article V Con-Con, nullify all unconstitutional federal laws and edicts. This article gives multiple examples of how to do this: thenewamerican.com/us/politics/how-states-can-nullify-to-enforce-the-constitution/ In 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that "This is not a good century to write a constitution." He's right. One of the biggest excuses for an Article V convention is the need for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). However, a BBA is absolutely unnecessary. Here's why: 1. The federal government lacks constitutional authority for its current spending and tax collection practices, a fact that remains true despite efforts to convene a convention for proposing amendments. 2. The U.S. Constitution is a list of specific powers granted to the federal government, not a list of prohibitions, meaning any power not listed remains with the states and the people. The 10th Amendment reinforces this fact. 3. Like an employee overstepping their authority, the federal government often exceeds its constitutional powers, especially if state legislatures (middle managers) fail to enforce limitations. 4. State legislatures play a crucial role in monitoring and restricting the federal government's actions to ensure adherence to the Constitution. A principled and watchful figure (e.g., a state legislature) can enforce the Constitution by highlighting and stopping unauthorized federal actions. 5. The federal budget would be significantly reduced simply by following the Constitution. HCR 48 is unnecessary and even harmful. Please oppose this bill.