On December 10 the Judiciary Committee of the Ohio House held a hearing on House Joint Resolution No. 8 (HJR 8), “Applying to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments.” A couple days earlier an AP article had stated that there could be a “possible vote” on HJR 8 at the hearing. However, pro-constitution citizens, including members of the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, and other like-minded groups, had been alerted about the hearing late in the preceding week.

These highly networked citizens went to work immediately, and by the time of the December 10 hearing there was so much constituent heat on the House floor leadership and on members of the Judiciary Committee that the “possible vote” morphed into a testimony-only hearing. All ten people giving testimony at the hearing were strongly opposed to HJR 8 and to the very concept of calling a constitutional convention (con-con). As a result, no vote was taken at the hearing, ensuring no further action on the con-con resolution in the 2008 session of the Ohio state legislature.

The reason why so many citizens joined together so quickly to put pressure on the Ohio House to reject HJR 8 is that the threat to our Constitution was real. A constitutional convention could propose a radically revised version of the Constitution, which, if ratified, would become our new Constitution. Here's the video, "Beware Article V," which makes this dangerous aspect of calling an Article V constitutional convention very clear:

It takes the agreement of two-thirds of the states (34) to trigger the call for a constitutional convention by Congress. Ohio would have become the 33rd state to make a con-con call based on a balanced budget amendment (bba). And, even though at least ten states, Alabama (1988), Florida (1988), and Louisiana (1990), Idaho (1999), Utah (2001), North Dakota (2001), Arizona (2003), Virginia (2004), South Carolina (2004), and Georgia (2004), have already rescinded their con-con calls for a bba (and for other purposes) over the past 20 years, pro con-con forces would argue that these rescissions don’t count and that only one more state is needed to force a constitutional convention. That’s why it’s prudent to ensure that no additional state makes a bba con-con call. And, that’s why the Ohio citizens worked so hard and so fast to defeat HJR 8.

Citizens in other states should be on the lookout for bba con-con resolutions to surface in in 2009. With GOP rising star Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) already urging his fellow Republicans to push for getting a balanced budget amendment approved by the new Congress, it won't be long until the GOP leadership acknowledges that a bba is about the last thing the Democrat majority would approve, and recommends that the Republicans pursue the alternate route to a bba through an Article V constitutional convention. And, having 32 of the necessary 34 states already on record as issuing a bba con-con call will appear to be very low-hanging fruit indeed. This is the case even though ten of these states have already rescinded their calls, and that if the 10th Amendment still has any meaning, only 22 states still have a valid call remaining on the record.

Constitutionalists in the 18 states (CA, CT, HI, IL, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NJ, NY, OH, RI, VT, WA, WV, WI) which have never issued a bba con-con call must be especially vigilant for con-con resolutions in early 2009. 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

BobbyXD9 said:

... Wow, where does one begin to clear up the wealth of misinformation contained above? I'm not a Republican,I'm a conservative & as such, am horrified by the spectre of a con-con. If Osama Barak & his socialist comrades in the legislature ever got the opportunity to eliminate the freedoms of religion, self protection, property, security in one's person & papers etc, America would be gone forever. It is a shame that such a thing could be startd with expiration just waiting for enough signatures to destroy our founding documents. Rest assured that I would fight to the death before I'd allow elected Marxist lawyers to rewrite our Constitution, even if it means fighting alongside liberals.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 04, 2009
Votes: +1

BobbyXD9 said:

	... Sorry, the above should read,"...without expiration".
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 04, 2009
Votes: +0

James361 said:

This Reverse Idea of no Con-Con is Stupid 1st: We have to try a Con-Con for change as there is no way around the Imperial Congress. 2nd: The whole process is out in the open so corruption should be at a minimum. 3rd: If they manage to corrupt the process then the states do not have to ratify what comes out. 4th: I think that our country is lost to socialism without some radical attempt to solve its problems and I want to go down fighting. I do fear a balanced budget amendment at this time as it would cause turmoil in government spending but it would be good for the country in the long run unless there are too many exceptions in it.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 06, 2009 | url
Votes: -1

Bill Walker said:

Let's get the facts straight---then decide Let's get the facts straight about an Article V Convention and then decide about it. The only fact stated correctly in the above story is that if 34 states apply for a convention, Congress must call one. The author seems to think the efforts of ten people stopped an Article V Convention call. He is incorrect. Not because Ohio might again bring up the issue, but because he doesn't tell his readers the basic facts about a convention and misstates those he does make. This is a very important issue and should not be decided because ten people show up at a meeting in Ohio. It certainly should not be decided because people don't have the real facts about an Article V Convention. The public record shows the following: All 50 states have submitted more than 650 applications for an Article V Convention. As to the issue of a balanced budget, the public record shows 37 states have applied for a convention. Therefore as even admitted by this author, Congress must call a convention. In short the protest at Ohio or anywhere else is presently meaningless. As to rescinding applications, there is no provision in Article V to allow the states to do so and the Supreme Court has already affirmed twicethat if there is no such language in the Constitution, it can't be done. In short, the courts have said Article V is literally, what you see is what you get. If you are interested in reading the texts of the actual applications, you can do so at www.foavc.org. This is the only place where the texts can be read. We invite everyone to do so. As to the embedded video we suggest you also view the video cited below before making up your mind. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-R-2tZBE1Q

report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2009 | url
Votes: -1