In a victory for the U.S. Constitution, a resolution applying for an Article V constitutional convention, or Con-Con, was defeated in Ohio.
House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) and Senate Joint Resolution 4 (SJR 4) had been pending in the Ohio General Assembly. They follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and Members of Congress of the United States.”
Despite the resolution’s attractive wording, any Article V convention poses a serious threat to the Constitution and the God-given liberties and limited government it guarantees. The New American has extensively reported on the dangers of a Con-Con.
The Ohio Senate General Government Budget Committee had been considering the COS resolutions. However, the General Assembly recessed without acting on them — despite Con-Con proponents’ expectations that the resolution would pass before the recess. Although legislators could attempt to pass the resolutions in the November/December lame-duck session, the likelihood of this is low.
Ohio Patriots Take Action
This pro-Constitution victory did not come without a fight. COS had put considerable effort into passing its resolution in Ohio. For example, it had held multiple events advocating for a Con-Con and ensured that the resolutions went to a committee that it viewed as COS-friendly.
Additionally, during the hearing intended for opposition testimony, the General Government Budget Committee allowed Meckler and another COS supporter to give rebuttal testimony, an uncommon occurrence.
However, these actions were no match to the efforts of members of The John Birch Society, along with other Ohio patriots, in educating legislators and the public about the dangers of a Con-Con and the benefits of nullification.
In total, 16 opponents testified at the hearing, systematically pulling apart Meckler’s claims. Among other points, they noted the precedent set by the 1787 constitutional convention, which went beyond its original purpose to merely revise the Articles of Confederation, did its work in secret, and changed the ratification rules.
Some opponents noted that changing or abolishing the U.S. Constitution is a major desire of leftists, and that new constitutions that curtail God-given freedoms have already been written. Others pointed out that multiple legal experts, including the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, advocated against a convention. “This Convention is fraught with risk and uncertainty, and the stakes are extremely high,” one opponent noted.
The opposition testifiers did not just focus on the problems with a Con-Con; they also highlighted nullification as a more effective and less risky solution. Rather than seeking to change the Constitution — which the federal government ignores in the first place — state legislators should enforce it by nullifying unconstitutional federal actions. As some opponents emphasized, fortitude is needed to stand up against the federal government.
Ultimately, the opponents gave effective testimony and made strong points against applying for an Article V convention. Their efforts illustrate the importance of education and concerted action. Few Americans truly understand the Constitution and how it — if properly interpreted and enforced — limits government, thus making them susceptible to COS’s claims. Using truth as their weapon, and by actively working together, the opposition speakers effectively demolished those claims.
By repeating this strategy — something The John Birch Society has been doing for over 60 years — not only will Con-Con applications be defeated and rescinded in other states, but state legislators will instead pursue superior solutions that truly rein in government.
To urge your state legislators to oppose resolutions applying for an Article V Con-Con, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here.
