I urge you to oppose HJR 13 and SR 2, 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. 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 13 and SR 2.

I strongly request that you oppose HJR 13, SR 2, and any other resolution that applies for an Article V convention, regardless of the subject. 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). 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 multiple special-interest changes to the Constitution that Con-Con proponents do not intend for. Not only could a Con-Con benefit special interests, but it could lead to amendments that limit our freedoms. The risk of an "out-of-control" convention has historical precedent. The 1787 constitutional convention was actually begun as a "limited" convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. While that convention produced a high-quality document, we live in too divided a time to draft a constitution equal to or superior to our current one, at least not without major social unrest. A Con-Con is unnecessary and dangerous. Oppose HJR 13, SR 2, and every other resolution applying for one.

Please oppose HJR 13, SR 2, and every other resolution applying for an Article V convention. 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 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. Our Constitution is one of the few things that unites us as a country. After all, it's been the law of the land longer than the constitutions of every other country. Changing it in any way will cause significant unrest. 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, figures including the late Justice Antonin Scalia (in 2014 and 2015 interviews) expressed opposition. Just as importantly, we don't even need an Article V convention to solve the problems facing our country. For example, 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. Please oppose HJR 13, SR 2, and every other resolution applying for an Article V convention.

I urge you to vote against HJR 13 and SR 2, along with every other Article V convention application, regardless of topic. 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 HJR 13 and SR 2.

I implore you to oppose HJR 13, SR 2, and every other resolution applying for an Article V constitutional convention. A Con-Con could have damaging effects on our country, irrespective of the specific policy issue it would raise. Our country is severely divided, and changing our most important national document could lead to massive unrest. James Madison made this same point in a 1788 letter to George Lee Turberville. Among other noteworthy statements that I encourage you to read, he stated: "[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. Despite the resolution's claim of seeking only a "limited" convention, it doesn't offer specific amendment text, meaning that a Con-Con could still do in many different directions. 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. Because of all this, please work to stop a Con-Con, including HJR 13 and SR 2, and oppose all resolutions that apply for one.