Constitutional Convention Resolution —Again

The Constitutional Laws Subcommittee of House Judiciary has scheduled a hearing for H. 3676 on Thursday at 9 AM in Blatt 516. Constitutional convention resolutions take several forms but are all attempts to do what Congress has not done, compel the nation to bow to the wishes of a minority of its people. Proponents believe that these conventions can be structured to require a one-state/one-vote model.

The broader Convention of States movement is described at https://conventionofstates.com. There, supporters note that a convention would only allow amendments that “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.” The word “only” is doing a lot of work here. Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government is a very big deal. South Carolina has already passed a Convention of States Resolution of this kind on March 29, 2022. 

The current bill, H. 3672, attempts to be more restricted and provides only that “the total of all federal appropriations made by Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints.” This raises two significant questions: whether such state resolutions can limit the scope of a convention and what happens if the effort is successful.

Although supporters of the Convention of States effort (CoS) like to portray the convention process as one in which state resolutions define the process, rules, and scope of the convention, many respected experts do not agree. Those who raise questions about this include the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which has produced multiple reports on questions surrounding Article V, especially those involving the role of Congress. These include:

• an important summary of the historical issues surrounding the Congressional role in a convention,[1]
• a companion review addresses contemporary issues for Congress,[2] and
• a later CRS article describes the status of proposals as of November 15, 2017.[3]

These assessments by CRS and others by independent constitutional scholars (for example, the American Bar Association[4] and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities[5]) make it clear that the convention process is shrouded in legal and political uncertainties.

Furthermore, even if a convention does not “go rogue” and limits itself to a balanced budget amendment that is then passed by the required three-quarters of the states, the results for most Americans would be catastrophic. We can be sure that proponents do not expect to see the budget balanced by enacting higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, but by draconian cuts. The federal programs that would be victims of this mandate would inevitably include Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety net programs, federal responses to both social and environmental emergencies, and much more. 

The League opposes H. 3676. We hope that other organizations will do so as well. The League encourages written testimony to the subcommittee at HJudConstitutionalLaws [at] schouse.gov. The agenda does not mention acceptance of oral testimony, although it is usually possible through signup immediately before the meeting.