I urge you to oppose HJR 3 and SJR 1, which would apply to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments, under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con). 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 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 Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is going around our state trying to convince you, your colleagues in the legislature, and the residents of our state that the solution to why Congress has run wild is because the Constitution lacks certain amendments. However, Senator Santorum voted for various unconstitutional bills and big-spending bills during his tenure in the Senate. For example, on March 16, 2006, he voted for H.J.Res.47 to raise the public debt limit by $781 billion, thereby creating the very fiscal irresponsibility that he now says that we need a Convention of States to solve. Please review his voting record here: thenewamerican.com/freedom-index/legislator/s000059/ 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 HJR 3 and SJR 1.

Please stop every resolution that applies for an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including HJR 3 and SJR 1. 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. 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. Many constitutional conservatives oppose an Article V constitutional convention. Please listen to these Constitutionalists (3-minutes long) briefly discuss why an Article V convention today would be a very bad idea: youtu.be/Q60OK1LmIKQ Also, please read this article by former DoD Secretary Melvin Laird warning of the dangers of an Article V Convention: jbs.org/assets/pdf/Melvin-Laird-Con-Con-1984-Original.pdf 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. I don't know if Senator Rick Santorum has visited your office to lobby in favor of a convention, nevertheless you should really watch this video where an Article V expert and speaker named Robert Brown debunks his claims: youtu.be/RgecUKL6_zU An Article V convention is unnecessary and dangerous. Please oppose HJR 3, SJR 1, and every other resolution applying for one.

I implore you to stop the passage of HJR 3, SJR 1, and any other resolution calling for an Article V convention of the states, or "Con-Con." 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). A 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. Many Constitutionalists in all levels of government agree; please take a look at this short video: youtu.be/Q60OK1LmIKQ Any amendment in a Con-Con will need broad support to pass. Thus, limited government conservatives will need to make concessions to left-liberals. The resulting document will not be an improvement from what we have today. We see extremists on the Left pushing for "fundamentally transforming" the nation into something unrecognizable. They would love a convention with the potential to do just that. Rather than apply Article 5, please use Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. It states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." As for former Senator Rick Santorum's lobbying efforts for an Article V convention on behalf of COS, please watch this video of Article V convention expert Robert Brown debunking his claims: youtu.be/RgecUKL6_zU Any law that violates the Constitution is null and void. Please enforce the Constitution, and oppose HJR 3 and SJR 1.

As your constituent, I respectfully request that you oppose HJR 3, SJR 1, and other constitutional convention applications. They would have damaging and unintended consequences for our nation. Constitutionalists all across the country oppose an Article V Convention, see this short three minute video: youtu.be/Q60OK1LmIKQ As for Senator Rick Santorum's support for such a convention, watch Article V expert Robert Brown debunk some of the claims that he made recently: youtu.be/RgecUKL6_zU 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. 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. 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 HJR 3, SJR 1, and every other Article V Con-Con resolution.

I urge you to oppose HJR 3, SJR 1, and all other attempts to apply for an Article V constitutional convention, also known as a Con-Con. A Con-Con will not actually limit the federal government. There's also a real risk of an Article V convention getting out of control and resulting in unintended amendments and, perhaps, even a new constitution. In 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that "This is not a good century to write a constitution." Considering the socialist, radical left, this is very true. Any changes to the Constitution will need approval from across the entire political spectrum, from left-liberals and right-conservatives alike. The resulting document won't be superior, or even equal, to our current constitution. Tellingly, James Madison, in a 1788 letter to George Lee Turberville, noted that radical and special-interest groups would take advantage of a Con-Con and divide and destroy the country in the process. If you have the time, please watch and read these short 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." 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. A Con-Con is an dangerous idea. To guard us against federal power-grabs, use Article VI, not Article V. Oppose HJR 3 and SJR 1.