Urgent: Don't Allow a Constitutional Convention. Listen to Hal Shurtleff.

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

I was lucky to pick up a small newspaper in New Hampshire, The Wiers Times, and find Hal Shurtleff's eight excellent reasons not to allow a constitutional convention. I will print them verbatim below. People in every state need to hear about this, as national lobbyists have been burrowing into every state legislature to get Resolutions proposing a ConCon.

I got the term ConCon from Australia, where I lived from 1980 to 1917. No doubt the person who invented the term 'ConCon' thought that the 1998 constitutional convention in Australia would be a real con job, and indeed it was. The plan was to consider changing that country from a monarchy to a Republic.

There was plenty of public sentiment for Oz to go republican, but the convention itself produced confusion as to the mode of electing a head of state. Finally, a referendum was sent to the people. It came back "Monarchy, please."

At least that Down Under nation was not demolished by the 1998 event, but the United States could suffer total destruction at the hands of a ConCon. Well, then, how did all the existing 27 Amendments in our Constitution come into being, of which the most recent was in 1992? Congress chose to use the option of proposing and passing an amendment, then sending it to the states for ratification. A whopping three-fourths of the states must say OK.

But there is another option in Article V of the Constitution, the one Hal Shurtleff is warning against. Two thirds of the states can apply to have a national convention. This has never happened to date. It is dangerous because the delegates could come up with anything -- and I mean anything -- including throwing the parchment away. Granted, the items proposed at a national convention would have to be ratified by the states, but imagine how the media could twist it. (And, ahem, ahem, how would the results get counted? Ahem.)

I recall that Rayelan Allen, the founder of RumorMillNews, has long preached against the holding of a ConCon.

Hal Shurtleff said, in his February 9, 2023 article,
"Since 2013, out of state lobbyists, on both sides of the political spectrum, have spent much time and money attempting to get New Hampshire to pass resolutions applying for an Article V Convention. Thankfully, they have been unsuccessful. However, they are back with two resolutions HCR 1 and HCR 4."

Note: Hal is the Director of Camp Constitution, a summer camp for children where they get to learn about the precious parchment. Incidentally, he recently won a US Supreme Court case about freedom of religion. Here is his explanation of why your state should be on guard:

A few reasons against an Article V Convention (by Hal Shurtleff)

1, There are currently no rules or laws guiding an Article V Convention. There have been some “wayward delegate” bills introduced in some states, but they are unenforceable and unconstitutional. It is the job of Congress, under the “necessary and proper” clause of the U.S. Constitution, to make laws guiding a convention. Over the years, numerous bills to govern an Article V Convention have been proposed by Congress but never passed.

2, We have no idea who the delegates will be. Will the majority be made up of conservative constitutionalists who love the U.S. Constitution or “progressives” who tend to hate the U.S. Constitution and see it as an anachronistic racist relic? Will delegates include members of Congress who Article V supporters rightfully see as part of the problem?

3, We have no idea how delegate will be chosen. Will they be elected by the people, appointed by state legislatures or by governors? If they are to be elected, will out-of-state money be used to influence the outcome? Will we have to suffer another season of mind-numbing attack ads?

4, A convention cannot be limited to a single issue or topic. State legislators have no Constitutional power to limit a convention.

5, Will the votes of the delegates be one state, one vote as Article V supporters content, or will it be based on electoral votes. I do not know and neither do supporters of an Article V Convention. If votes are based on electoral votes, New Hampshire will have four votes, California 55, and New York 29.

6, Bad amendments can not only pass a convention but can be ratified by 3/4th of the states. The 16th Amendment giving us an income tax and 17th Amendment that radically changed the state-federal balance of power were passed by the 3/4ths of the states. Mike Farris of Convention of States, who recently testified before a New Hampshire committee, is calling for structural change of the Constitution, including a 50-member Supreme Court -- something he failed to tell committee members. Professor Larry Lessig, a colleague of Convention of States founder Mark Meckler, called for a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution. I actually videotaped an interview with him and Wolf PAC founder Cenk Uygur where he hoped for a “runaway convention.”

7. All of the proposed balanced budget amendments, promoted by “conservative” supporters of an Article V Convention, have two escape clauses: war and a national emergency. This will incentivize permanent national emergencies and make them constitutional.

8, A term limits amendment proposed by “conservative” Article V supporters may “get the bums out” after 12 years, but will also limit good members of Congress. It will also give us a permanent “lame duck” Congress.

Article V Convention supporters incorrectly contend that the Founders gave us the convention method to rein in an abusive federal government. The Founders gave us the convention method if Congress was unwilling to correct defects in the Constitution. Our problem is not a defective U.S. Constitution but defective elected officials and voters many of whom support an abusive federal government.
I can be reached at campconstitution1@gmail.com -- Hal Shurtleff

Comment by Mary Maxwell: I think the US Constitution's article on Amending is the only Article -- Article V -- that is difficult to read, so I did not print it above. But for all you parchmentarians out there, here it is:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

-- Mary Maxwell ran unsuccessfully in the 2022 Republican primary for Congress from NH's District 1. A pdf of her book "Keep the Republic, Kill the Takeover" is linked below. She is also the author of Prosecution for Treason, TrineDay Press.