Meeting Public Comments

Lois C Lawler []

1) The Convention of Delegates which produced the Constitution of the United States was called under authorization of the Continental Congress. Their instructions were clear and historical papers show that those at the meeting were concerned that they had exceeded the authority delegated to them by Congress and their respective States: Resolution of Congress.11787, February 21Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the Assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such Convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national governmentResolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the UnionRichard CaswellCaswell, Richard1st March, 1787Kinston (https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrandtherecordsofthefederalconventionof1787vol3?fbclid=IwAR2WodRFUBDYq095bnb91gjynlbhnGHdjQ8V6AwNXsU1YnSI9DgVBWGIk#lf054403head002 )Saturday, June 9th, 1787 (Recorded by Yates)Mr. Patterson... Let us consider with what powers are we sent here? (moved to have the credentials of Massachusetts read, which was done.) By this and the other credentials we see, that the basis of our present authority is founded on a revision of the articles of the present confederation, and to alter or amend them in such parts where they may appear defective. Can we on this ground form a national government? I fancy not. Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings?"Robert Yates and John Lansing, Jr. to the Governor of New York (Jan 15, 1788). Sir, We do ourselves the honor to advise your excellency, that in pursuance of concurrent resolutions of the honorable senate and assembly, we have, together with Mr. Hamilton, attended the convention, appointed for revising the articles of confederation, and reporting amendments to the same.It is with the sincerest concern we observe, that, in the prosecution of the important objects of our mission, we have been reduced to the disagreeable alternative, of either exceeding the powers delegated to us, and giving our assent to measures which we conceive destructive to the political happiness of the citizens of the United States, or opposing our opinions to that of a body of respectable men, to whom those citizens had given the most unequivocal proofs of confidence...Our powers were explicit, and confined to the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting such alterations and provisions therein, as should render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the union."More examples are extant. There has never been a Convention called by Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. There are many historical records of States having Conventions, but not under Article V.2. Legal precedent shows that restrictions given delegates may be unenforceable. The Convention was held in secrecy with all notes to be collected daily. These papers were not released until many years later. How could a State enforce unfaithful delegates such as Delawares:The State of Delaware had restrictions on the authority of their delegates (from the assembled minutes of the convention):On Friday 25 of May 1787 (After choosing a secretary) the respective credentials of the seven states were read. N. B. That of Delaware restrained its delegates from assenting to an abolition of the fifth article of the confederation, by which it is declared that each state shall have one vote.3. Consider that the reason for an Article V Convention is to reign in a Federal government that has wildly exceeded the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. Nothing in Article V tells us how the delegates to such a convention would be chosen. Consider that of the 55 delegates in 1787, four fifths or 41 were or had been members of the Continental Congress. From the Congressional Research Service in 2016 : Other commentators, however, have suggested that there is no apparent constitutional prohibition of Senators and Representatives serving in an Article V Convention. The American Bar Associations 1974 study determined that the constitutional prohibition bans Members of Congress from serving in one of the branches of the U.S. government, but concluded that service as a stateelected delegate to a national constitutional convention does not meet this standard. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42589/15Why would anyone expect the same members of Congress that have been spending with such largess to adopt a balanced budget amendment?4. Though many prominent attorneys may support an Article V Resolution, such an appeal to authority does not abrogate the equally estimable attorneys and scholars that hold the opposite opinion. 5. Out of state funding, dark money, and foreign influence in the US would indicate this is a far from propitious time to call for an Article V Convention. Dark money groups have spent roughly $1 billion mainly on television and online ads and mailers to influence elections in the decade since the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling that gave rise to politically active nonprofits. From Open Secrets https://www.opensecrets.org/darkmoney/basics January 10, 2024 FBI Director Wray: The 2024 U.S. elections will be different from any others because more countries are now getting involved in influence operations after seeing Russia, China and Irans previous actions, FBI Director Christopher Wray said.What we have seen since 2018 is that we've seen more foreign actors, more nationstates want to get in the business of trying to interfere or at least influence elections. And we've seen the techniques evolve. In that sense, every election cycle presents bigger challenges, Wray said Tuesday at the 10th International Conference on Cyber Security in New York City this week.6. Finally the Articles of Confederation called for unanimous consent of the States to be amended. This was changed in the proposed U.S.Constitution to three fourths of the States to ratify. Yet the Constitution took effect without being ratified by all States on the first Wednesday in March 1789. Rhode Island and North Carolina ratified after the Constitution was put into use:On November 21, 1789, the people of the state of North Carolina ratified the United States Constitution. On May 29, 1790, the people of the State of Rhode Island also ratified the U.S. Constitution. Yet, despite the goodfaith acts of these two states and their citizens, the respective admission into the United States of both polities was characterized by an aberration which rendered their admittance constitutionally suspect. More specifically, by the time North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, it was already in effect. Both states were, therefore, independent political societies that had no constitutional relationship with the United States. Accordingly, under the express terms of Article IV, 3, of the U.S. Constitution, it was necessary to admit them by an Act of Congress.Congress, however, inexplicably neglected to perform the constitutional due diligence required of it and did not pass legislation to admit either North Carolina or Rhode Island, choosing instead to acquiescently accept their respective ratifications as the legal instrument of admission. By allowing the ratifications to stand, Congress manifestly failed to observe the carefullyspecified requirements for the admission of new states. Because the Constitution was in effect and operative, its provisions were ineluctably and indisputably the supreme law of the land.Commencement of the ConstitutionAccording to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution legally took effect on March 4, 1789, as the question of the Constitutions commencement date was presented to the Court in 1820, in the case of Owings v Speed.1 In deciding the case, the Court was obliged to meticulously review the sequence of transitional events that occurred as the states withdrew from the government under the Articles of Confederation and subsequently inaugurated the Constitution. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim in the case was entirely dependent on the judicial determination of when the Constitution became effective.And in its decision, the Court directly contradicted the plaintiffs assertion of a 1788 commencement date and settled the issue when it announced, it is apparent that its operation did not commence before the first Wednesday in March, 1789.2 https://allthingsliberty.com/2021/02/theadmissionofnorthcarolinaandrhodeislandintotheunion/ An Amendment changing the ratification of the Constitution is within legal precedent and makes many arguments against an Article V Convention moot. Please do not pass HJR 7 out of committee.Thankyou for your consideration.

Mary Jobst []

Please withdraw this bill. An Article V Convention of States will have devastating consequences

Rick Phillips []

Is this a good idea? Just recently we have permitted Satan to set up a display in the Capitol, we don't know what a woman is or what bathroom to use, have mobs of LGBTQ rioting about 81 different gender identities and madeup fictitious rights to support that insanity, and even allow Palestinian Hamas terrorists to protest about their right to go on a murderous rampage against Israel. How can we possibly expect to find statesmen among all that nonsense? We are a state of feelings and lack all rationale. Identity politics will leach into this effort and poison it however good intended. All a mob of reprobates will have to do is suspend the rules and the concept of a constitution is history. And if we cannot even enforce the constitution we have now, why would we think we would abide by another? We might be better to vote on having a Nuremburg style trial and deal with the treasonous bastards who are allowing this country to be invaded. Do not pass HJR7.