The Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility Committee of the Arizona state legislature held a hearing yesterday to discuss Arizona’s Application to send delegates to an Article V Convention.

The hearing was attended by approximately 70 people. All the chairs were taken and a few of us remained standing. A few young and well behaved patriots were there also.

Activity began with some procedural housekeeping regarding delegates to the convention when it occurs. At present, Arizona proposes to send the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the Senate President.

The vote on the procedural issue set the stage with a 5-3 positive result. Debbie Lesko commented that government spending is out of control, putting her children and grandchildren at risk. She said she has heard from both sides on the issue and though she is not a constitutional expert she would like to see the process continue.

Carl Seel noted “there are a lot of moving parts” to the proposal but likes the Convention of States’ approach due to the safeguards. He is concerned about codifying protections into the state resolution and even though he has misgivings he would like to see it discussed further.

Bruce Wheeler was the only one vocally opposed to the proposal. He feels that calling for a convention to amend the constitution opens the door to abortion rights and other issues ad infinitum.

Steve Smith has been following the Article V discussion for 3 years now and is convinced that Article V is the tool to explore.

Justin Olson, chairman of the committee was the one most vocally in favor. He relates he has talked to individuals on both sides of the issue who all have strong and sincere commitment to the constitution but differ on the means. The intent is to get back on track. Our rights are being trampled by a government that has exceeded its limits. He sees government as aggressive and overgrown to the point where it has too large an impact on our lives. Mr. Olson understands that over grown government does much more harm than good. He realizes that once the Supreme Court mandates citizens to buy insurance the next logical step is no limits at all. He sees borrowing and spending as an existential threat to our generation and something has to be done. Rep Olson is “Glad to support” the resolution.

The first speaker was Rep Kelly Townsend, primary sponsor of the bill. She emphasized that there are three issues when a convention is called. First addressing the budget and fiscal reduction, second limiting power and jurisdiction and third, term limits.

Rep Townsend related her experience at the recent Mt. Vernon conference. During the workshop, George Washington’s likeness was projected over the walls and gave the impression he was in the room with all of them. She was not in favor at first but has become a full supporter. There are a lot of unknowns and what ifs but she considers it a decent, honest approach.

Presently there are two versions of the proposal under consideration in the legislature and they are expected to be merged in a way which seemed to meet everyone’s approval.

Michael Ferris of Citizens for Self-Governance (Convention of States Project) spoke next. As an Article V litigator he is well versed in the intricacies of Article V. He testified before the committee that the proposal put forth is designed to be done correctly by the constitution and in such a way as to avoid future litigation. Even though there are some differences between the states procedurally, they all follow the same formula.

Mr. Ferris assured the committee in detail that the concerns that had been raised won’t happen. He pointed out that under the current system of congressional mandates, programs are mandated then sometimes funded, sometimes not. The only way to recover true Federalism is to resolve the disparity between the way the constitution is written and the way it is interpreted. He explained how George Mason gave us this tool. Because 38 states are required to pass the same final resolutions, the best approach and best chance of success of actually limiting government lies with the proposed approach.

There are roughly 6-7 proposed amendments currently drafted and pending. When a convention is held, each will be subjected to a yes or no vote with each state having 1 vote. When the delegates are named, the state issues instructions to the delegates to insure they perform what they are supposed to do. Mr. Ferris recommends a committee of 6-11 be appointed to the convention.

Rep Seel asked a question regarding how the delegates are held accountable. Mr. Ferris explained in order to avoid litigation the papers appointing delegates spell out extremely clean and crisp limits. As a sovereign state the commission papers are legally binding “marching orders” similar to those given to any ambassador or agent set out in writing. Rep Seel also asked what keeps the delegates from doing something such as wiping out the first 10 amendments. The answer was that the agenda is binding. The reason a convention has never been called before is because 34 states have never agreed on an agenda but once an agenda is agreed to, it is “set in stone.”

Former representative Barbara Brewster spoke next against the resolution. She believes that the 10th amendment should be upheld instead and that nullification is a better course of action. She believes the constitution is fine just the way it is and sees an Article V convention as a “trap” “eviscerating the powers already in the constitution.”

Joshua Cardin, a CoS volunteer spoke next in favor while agreeing with the “passionate cry from the previous speaker for return to limited government.”

Jennifer Reynolds spoke in opposition. As a lover of the constitution, she feels insulted. She is afraid of a runaway convention and insists that nullification is a better answer because the constitution is not broken.

This sentiment was echoed by William Bluster who was also against. He feels “it can’t be confined, it is a house of cards.” “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.”

Leonard Clark doesn’t like “tinkering around.” The world is changing fast enough and confusing people. He feels it would be like “opening Pandora’s box.”

Gerard Snyder spoke in support. “We are their employers, they treat us with disdain and ignore the populace.”

I spoke last. I had no prepared remarks so reiterated things I have written and posted before. Last October, Earl Conlon, in an interview with US News and World Report stated that thousands of truckers were going to storm Washington, circle the beltway 3 lanes deep and arrest all the Congressmen and the President. We knew in our hearts that would never materialize but as I testified: “myself and at my best guess 3-4 million other people were extremely active in trying to make it a reality. Showing our support by flashing T2SDA signs, boycotting stores and pounding the keyboard day and night. Earl Conlon struck a chord. We knew it couldn’t go off that easy but we started to ask “How can we take back our government.” After looking into it I came upon Convention of States. I am convinced that it is the only peaceful alternative that has a chance of working.

I addressed the concerns raised by the others by pointing out that the runaway convention fear was common and that it was well addressed in the materials on the CoS web site thanks to Mr. Ferris’ efforts. I also pointed out that the requirement for all 38 states to agree on exactly the same language was an inherent restraint. Everyone literally needs to be on the same page.

I pointed out that George Mason was insightful enough to foresee the need for this mechanism and installed it into the constitution precisely for the circumstances we are in today. I hope they found my arguments if not convincing, at least thought provoking.

The vote came in also 5-3 in favor of proceeding to the next step along the same voting lines as the earlier procedural vote.

After the hearing, Mr. Ferris and Rep Townsend held a question and answer session. Senate President Andy Biggs will be our biggest challenge to win over. He is from the Gilbert District so any of his constituents are urged to call in support of CoS. Urge him to release the bill to committee.

Please be polite in any communication with any legislator but especially Andy Biggs as we do not wish to antagonize him, simply persuade him the bill needs more discussion.

Ms. Townsend says that phone calls are much more effective than either mail, e-mail or face to face communication. Representatives are too busy for face to face meetings and get swamped by emails. Phone calls get in their face.

Below is a copy of the resolution.

Sponsors of the bill include Rep Kelly Townsend, who spoke at today’s hearing, as well as Rep Darin Mitchell and Rep Don Shooter of my district. Other sponsors are:

Rep David M. Gowan Sr., Rep David Livingston, Rep Ethan Orr, Rep Warren Petersen, Rep Steve Smith, Rep David W. Stevens, Rep Bob Thorpe, Rep Brenda Barton, Rep Karen Fann, Sen Kelli Ward.

Text Overview

HCR 2027 applies for an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the United States (U.S.) Constitution.

History

Article V of the United States (U.S.) Constitution states that amendments to the U.S. Constitution can be proposed by either: the approval of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, or on the application for a convention by two-thirds of the states’ legislatures. Proposed amendments are ratified by three-fourths of the states’ legislatures or by three-fourths of the states’ conventions. Congress may propose one or the other mode of ratification.

Provisions

· Applies to Congress to call an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution that will:

Ø Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,

Ø Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and

Ø Limit the terms of office for officials of the federal government.

· Continues this application until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states have made an application on the same subject.

· Instructs the Secretary of State to transmit copies of this application to specified individuals.

Once out of committee, bills go on the calendar of the Committee of the Whole. A bill may be placed on the Active Calendar of the Committee of the Whole so that the Committee of the Whole may debate the bill, propose floor amendments, and vote on whether the bill should go to third reading.