Ohio House Judiciary Committee
Opposition Testimony for House Joint Resolution No. 8
December 10, 2008
Chairman Blessing and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opposing testimony on House Joint Resolution No. 8. My name is Teri Owens and I am from Delaware, Ohio.
This is my first testimony before a legislative committee, but I don’t want to waste precious time explaining who I am because my background, ethnicity, race, religion or vocation does not matter to this issue. I speak as a citizen of Ohio, who – no matter what special interest categories I might fit into – stands to be irreparably harmed by the ramifications of calling an Article V convention. The quickness and quietness with which this legislation emerged and is moving is especially troubling because of this.
With due respect to the Sponsor, Representative Huffman, for those who stand in opposition to calling an Article V Constitutional Convention, it is not about fear, but rather wisdom.
The consensus among jurists and Constitutional scholars is that once a Constitutional Convention is called in accordance with article V, state legislatures have no authority in the method of selecting delegates and no authority to limit the scope or outcome of the convention. The only precedent for this in our nation’s history was the first Constitutional Convention, which was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. Indeed this became a runaway convention that emerged not with an amendment, but a brand new form of government and Constitution which only required 9 of the 13 states to ratify in nominating conventions rather than the consent of all state legislatures per the Articles of Confederation.
By its very nature, a Constitutional convention creates a sovereign representative body of the people and no limitation of the state legislatures or congress can restrain the delegates.
Would a Constitutional Convention become another runaway jeopardizing the political protection of the God-given rights of Ohio citizens? Is it wise to take that risk in today’s divided political climate?
Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg summed up the answer this way: “if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is no, but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is yes. In our history we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the convention itself was a definite runaway.”
In addition to the dangers of a con-con, the most glaring problem with HJR 8 and its companion bill SJR 9 is that a Constitutional Convention is not even needed to address the problem cited. Applications for a Convention should only be used if a Legislature believes that the present Constitution is structurally flawed and in need of repair. An unbalanced federal budget is not the result of a “Constitutional flaw,” rather it is the result of a Congress which consistently ignores the Constitutional limitations upon its spending of federal funds.
I have emailed to all of you links to a 4 part video series called Beware: Article V which was created by legislators to help you take a closer look at the serious implications of an Article V Constitutional Convention. All four parts can be viewed at principledpolicy.com.
Chairman Blessing and members of the committee, I strongly urge you to vote against sending this bill to a floor vote. This issue comes down to whether you believe the “possibility” of obtaining a balanced budget amendment is worth the risk that our entire system of government could be changed. Chairman Blessing I know that you are a 20 year champion of a Con-Con and I especially urge you to allow your fellow legislators more time to discern the wisdom of this resolution before they are forced to vote on it.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.
