I urge you to oppose B 1715, B 272, C 184, and C 806, 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). Also oppose S9200 and A10115, which would do nothing except create false confidence that a convention won't 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. I urge you to read the following op-ed by former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird warning of the perils convening a convention: jbs.org/assets/pdf/Melvin-Laird-Con-Con-1984-Original.pdf 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, not to change it. Please oppose and vote against B 1715, B 272, C 184, and C 806.

I strongly request that you oppose and reject B 1715, B 272, C 184, C 806, S9200, and A10115, and all other Article V convention resolutions, no matter their subject or the policy they seek to advance. 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. Please read this article by former Defense Secretary Melvin Laird explaining why a convention would be dangerous for our country for national security reasons: jbs.org/assets/pdf/Melvin-Laird-Con-Con-1984-Original.pdf Any Article V convention would be a win for special interests and a loss for our country. The subject the convention would seek to act on is irrelevant -- a Con-Con could destabilize our country and become out-of-control. Our country is divided now, probably more than at any other point in history. The only thing that unites us is our shared Constitution. Why should we also take away this point of unity? A Con-Con could also limit the Bill of Rights, and either way, once a Con-Con is called, nothing would stop delegates from proposing amendments completely unrelated to what the Con-Con supporters want. The pro-Article V convention position rests on a false presupposition -- that there's something wrong with the Constitution that changing it would fix. Even if there were (there's not), the divisiveness and destabilizing effect of a Con-Con would neutralize any potential for an improved document. Please oppose all Con-Con applications, including B 1715, B 272, C 184, C 806, S9200, and A10115.

Please oppose and vote against B 1715, B 272, C 184, C 806, and every other resolution calling for an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Please also vote against S9200 and A10115, which would merely give false assurance that a runaway convention won't happen. I encourage you to read the following op-ed by former Defense Secretary Melvin Laird warning of the national-security consequences of a Con-Con: jbs.org/assets/pdf/Melvin-Laird-Con-Con-1984-Original.pdf There are many reasons why an Article V convention would be harmful to our country. It could lead to an "out-of-control" convention, special interests and other unsavory groups will inevitably take advantage of it, it will lead to unrest, and it falsely assumes that changing the Constitution will solve our country's problems. 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. All-in-all, an Article V convention is unnecessary, unwelcome, and could severely harm our nation. Work to stop it, including by defeating B 1715, B 272, C 184, and C 806.

Please oppose B 1715, B 272, C 184, and C 806, along with every other application for an Article V convention, regardless of the subject. Also oppose S9200 and A10115, which would create unenforceable guidelines -- these bills wouldn't prevent a runaway convention, but merely create false assurance. 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 could use their influence to push personal agendas, far from the original intention of the proposed constitutional amendment. 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. I also encourage you to read an editorial from Melvin Laird, the former U.S. Secretary of Defense. He recognized serious national-security risks that a convention would pose: jbs.org/assets/pdf/Melvin-Laird-Con-Con-1984-Original.pdf These resolutions rest 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. There's also a high risk of a runaway convention, where amendments are proposed that Con-Con proponents didn't have in mind. The 1787 constitutional convention was a runaway convention, originally convened merely to amend the Articles of Confederation. Additionally, James Madison, in a 1788 letter to George Lee Turberville, stated that he opposed a second constitutional convention because special interests and extreme groups would take advantage of one. Please oppose and vote against B 1715, B 272, C 184, C 806, S9200, and A10115.

I implore you to oppose B 1715, B 272, C 184, C 806, S9200, and A10115, and to ensure that they are rejected by the State Legislature. Please read this article by former DoD Secretary Melvin Laird warning of the national security dangers of an Article V Convention: jbs.org/assets/pdf/Melvin-Laird-Con-Con-1984-Original.pdf Any Con-Con application -- regardless of the topic -- could have a destructive effect on our country and Constitution, and should be opposed. A runaway convention will likely result -- similar to the 1787 constitutional convention -- and result in changes that nobody originally called for. These changes could limit our constitutional freedoms. For any amendments to pass, it would realistically need support from across the political spectrum. This makes the outcome of a Con-Con even more unknown. It's highly unlikely that any changes to the Constitution resulting from a convention would be superior to the current text. Please consider the following irrefutable 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 conventions (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) supported it, then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people. 10. The same scenario is true if 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 B 1715, B 272, C 184, C 806, S9200, and A10115, and work to ensure they don't pass.