Read below to understand why LR14 and LB195 present a danger to the US Contitution. Hearings will be held February 10th. What can you do? Testify in person if possible. If unable to attend, click on the Alert! Action Needed for the procedures to follow to submit written testimony!
LR14 Resolution to Congress for convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution
LB195 Adopt the faithful delegate to federal Article V Convention Act.
Hearings are scheduled for Feb. 10th
LR14 calls an Article V convention. Such a convention would be a ‘con’ on America. Convention of States (COS) proponents make a lot of promises they cannot prove nor back up with facts. Article V of the U.S.Constitution is vague on rules, so convention rules will have to be written. The Constitution allows that when 34 states ask for a new convention, Congress “shall call a Convention” and that the amendments passed by the Constitutional Convention become part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths of the several states or by conventions in those states.
This ratification by the states may seem like a safeguard to a run-away Constitutional Convention, but is it? In the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which is the only national precedent we have, the ratification process was changed from a unanimous requirement in the Articles of Confederation to only nine states required in the New Constitution. In other words, the delegates changed the ratification process in the original Constitutional Convention before they sent the new constitution out to the states to be ratified. Nothing in Article V prohibits changes to the ratification process. Could that happen again? In this political environment that is devoid of truth and the sacredness of our essential constitutional processes like elections, Americans have no guarantees.
If the delegates at a new Constitutional Convention felt that they could not get their many new amendments passed by enough states, they could change the number of states required to ratify their multiple amendments. Considering the deep divide between Red and Blue states, are there the required 38 states that could agree on any new amendment? So a logical solution to achieve the ratification of all the new amendments would be to change the ratification process and lower the number of states required for ratification.
Who sets the rules for the Convention? Pro-convention groups like the Convention of States claim that “the states would set the rules”. How? Congress calls the Convention, sets the time and location, and then Congress would set the rules. Does that give you comfort knowing that Pelosi and Schumer would be deciding the rules for a Constitutional Convention and who controls the gavel?
For example, former Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah had a set of rules for a Constitutional Convention passed by the U.S. Senate. These rules contained a provision that the votes accorded to the states would be according to the Electoral College. In other words, if your state has 8 Congressmen and 2 Senators, then your state would have 10 votes out of 538 at the Constitutional Convention. Radical California would have 55 and New York would have 29. Most Red states have much smaller populations and therefore much smaller representation.
How would the delegates to the Constitutional Convention be chosen? The only guidance in Article V is to leave that detail to the state legislatures. Do you have full confidence in your state legislature to choose delegates who would represent you and stand solidly behind our Constitutional Republic? Having worked in my own Nebraska legislature for decades, I would say that state legislators have about as much integrity as the U.S. Congress. It is scary to consider putting our sacred Constitution in the hands of compromised and corrupt politicians who are supposed to fix it.
At any new Constitutional Convention, the Bill of Rights could be re-written. The Second Amendment to keep and bear arms would be the first to go. During this pandemic shutdown, we’ve seen our representatives will easily use the cudgel of “public safety and health” to put limits on our precious First Amendment rights of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Action Needed on LB195 and LR14
- Begin contacting Senators of your concerns and ask that they vote NO to both LB195 and LR14.
- If possible, testify in person at the hearing on Feb. 10th. Take 12 written copies of your testimony with you.
- Email separately for LB195 and LR14 when submitting written testimony!
- Include the bill number
- Include your name and address
- Clearly state your position as “in opposition”
- Include a request that your testimony be included in the official record of the hearing
- Be polite
Key Talking Points:
- The Convention of 1787 delegates changed the number of states required to ratify the changes they made. This proves that delegates to a federal convention could do the same today. There is no insurance that 3/4 of the several states would remain the required number of states this time. Could it become a “simple majority”?
- Several delegates to the Convention of 1787 were given specific directives from their states to simply tweet the Articles of Confederation…instead our current U.S. Constitution was written. Delegates are not bound to follow directives from their sending state.
- Who sets the rules of a federal Article V Constitutional Convention? Congress calls the convention and Congress will see themselves as overseer and boss.
- Who would be delegates to such a convention? Would it be someone from our federal delegation? Would it be someone from the State’s Executive branch? Our Legislature? Can we always trust these individuals to do what is right or best?
- If the current U.S. Constitution is not being followed now, how does changing the wording make any difference?
- How many delegates would each state get? No one knows, but if each state gets the same number as their electoral votes, small states do not stand a chance against states like California, Florida, Texas, etc.