March 10, 2026 · Government Oversight Committee · 11,933 words · 8 speakers · 120 segments
Now call this meeting of the House Government Oversight Committee to order. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Chair Hall. Here. Vice Chair Ferguson is excused. Ranking Member Humphrey. Representative Claggett. Here. Representative Gross. Here. Representative King. Here. Representative Lear. Here. Representative Pazilius checked in. Representative Rader. Here. Representative Sims. Here. Representative Stevens. Here. Representative Troy is checked in. Representative Workman. There is Representative Humphrey as we speak. It's been a crazy day here at the Statehouse with the State of the State got moved to today. And that is why a lot of members have been rushing around to different committees and different meetings that have been rescheduled and scheduled again. Today we have two pieces of legislation before us, H.A.R. number 2 and House Bill 67. I will ask the witnesses that are coming in today that plan to speak for both, if you would like, while you're up testifying for the first one, I think we have a list of some people who have decided to submit a testimony for both of them. If you would like, you're allowed to spend an extra minute, two minutes, to go ahead and talk about why you're against the other piece of legislation as well. It would kind of save time on both ends, if you would like. Again, we have a five-minute policy on testimony for when you are at the microphone. But other than that, we will move right ahead and go on to House Joint Resolution number two. I will call up Amanda Sabroski for testimony. All right. Looks like Amanda is not with us, so we'll move down the list. is Dr. John Diamond with us. Dr. John, welcome to committee. You may proceed when ready.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Dr. John Diamond. I was born about a mile down the road here at Grant Hospital in 1965, graduated from West High School in 1983, joined the United States Air Force six days after high school, spent eight years in the military, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that's why I'm here opposing SJ2. We've got—this is very, very dangerous. I was a theologian before I became a constitutional scholar. I wrote both my master's and my doctoral dissertation on the founding of this nation, and I think that's the only seminary dissertations that were ever written on things outside of the scripture. And I actually go back to the Protestant Reformation because that's really where America's history starts. Europe was on fire with a bunch of religious persecution. The founders all kind of fled here to flee from that. And then they gave us what we would consider to be our wonderful, wonderful First Amendment. but now that and pretty much everything else is at risk if we call this constitutional convention. It can't be. It will not be limited. A couple things I want to bring to your attention. The National Constitution Center, which is in Philly, I spoke out there last year as one of the speakers. The National Constitution Center actually has what they call the Constitution Drafting Project. And it starts off by saying we here to celebrate the greatest document of human freedom but then they turn around and they have what called the Constitution Drafting Project where they ask teams of scholars to submit their ideal constitution Now, I believe we have an ideal constitution, the one the Founding Fathers gave us, the ones that just escaped all the tyranny and just shed blood to give us everything and all the freedoms that we have. I think they know a whole lot better than we do why our constitution was founded, why it was created, what it was seeking to prevent. So I only printed off the progressive and the conservative. That way this wouldn't be seen as bias in either way. But both of those do not limit the power of the federal government. It expands it. And I'm only going to read the First Amendment, the new First Amendment, under the conservative one. OK? It says, all persons have the enalable right to the free exercise of religion and according with conscience. Neither the states nor the United States shall make or enforce any law requiring with specific purpose of inducing any religious practice or favoring any religion over another or prohibiting, impeding, or penalizing the free exercise of religion. Sounds great until you get to the next line. Except where it is necessary to secure public peace and order and comparably compelling public ends. Our Constitution says Congress shall make no law. The new Constitution says Congress shall make no law except, and then they give you a whole bunch of ambiguous stuff that you could basically shove anything into. And I've submitted these to you. These are actually long, fully written constitutions. I only submitted like two pages because that's the one I'm focusing on here. And then here's the progressive one. No one shall be subject to coercion, which would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law. So both of these proposed constitutions don't say Congress shall make no law. They say Congress can regulate this. All right? And that's even close to what it says about the Second Amendment. And I've highlighted that on your paper since I'm not going to have time to talk about this. When I listen to some of these people talk that they're constitutional scholars, you can go back and read the Constitution. If you don't know why it was drafted, you don't understand the safeguards they put in place. I'm here to tell you right now that this is a Trojan horse. And if you understand the story from antiquity, the Greeks tried to take down the city of Troy for 10 years, put it under siege. And they said, this ain't working. We've got to try something different. So in one night, they built a horse. They said the war is over. They got in their ships. They slid away. And they were deceived into opening those gates and letting the people in, the enemies in. And it destroyed it in one night. Okay? This Convention of States is a Trojan horse. And they have absolutely no way of getting in our Constitution unless you open the gates. You are the last line of defense to keep our Constitution from being meddled with. So I just want to thank you for your time. My time is up here, unless anybody has anything for me.
Thank you, sir, for being with us today. Is there any questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you for – is there a question? Brief, please. But yes.
Thank you. So you said it's a Trojan horse, and I just want to understand, from your understanding, What would the process be if enough states were to actually pass a convention of states and require that there be one what would the process how many different layers would there be before there could actually be constitutional changes? Can you help me understand that? Because I think it's not just the states. I think it also involves Congress, and then we have to ratify. But I want to hear from your perspective, of what are all the different hoops they would have to jump through to make these changes stick.
Yeah, I think actually one of our speakers is going to speak on to that. One of the papers I gave you, though, and again, this is not partisan red or blue, but I sent you one of the things where New Jersey, the Democrats in New Jersey, just submitted a proposal for a con-con for reproductive rights or abortion. Okay, so you can imagine what a con-con could look like as defiant as this party is. I'm not Republican. I'm not Democrat. I'm an American who took a note to defend the Constitution. This nation is so polarized, it's not funny, right? And you try to get all those people up with views that are so different from another, I can't imagine what would come out of this thing, if it would even go through, if there would be such infighting. My biggest thing is they get in there and they change the rules, and they get like half of the states to agree to it. Because they changed the rules the first time. If you remember the Articles of Confederation, they needed all 13 states to ratify that. They got in there and they changed it. So don't let them convince you that they can't do that again. Read Madison's Federalist 40. They did it. We've got a great big gigantic book sitting right here that is a government document that says Madison says we were beyond our purview. We did what they said we're not supposed to do. So someone might be able to speak to the nuts and bolts of that. It wouldn't be good. My biggest fear that it would be a civil war. And that's if they get up in there and half the states would go for it and half the states don't, and especially if the one states are going, you lied to us. You said we'd have control of it. You said we'd control our reps. You said it would have to take three-quarters of the states. And now half of you are agreeing to it and half of you are not. I mean, they put out a movie, Civil War, here not too long ago to kind of prime the plug a little bit. We need to do whatever we can do to avert that. All right?
Thank you, Dr. John Diamond. Members, we're going to be here all night if we're going to ask all these questions. So Representative Raider. Short question.
One thing that I'm concerned about is foreign influence, in particular in these situations. We see what's going on. Maybe you could just speak to that briefly if you're concerned about if we do this, we crack this open, we've got groups like AIPAC flooding money into congressional races to try to get folks elected. What would happen? Are you worried about that foreign influence?
Oh, absolutely. I'm worried about foreign influence on our elections, on everything else. And I think both sides are. Both sides are worried about foreign interference in our elections. How much more one of these where people can have their palms greased a little bit to support a particular topic. I mean, we're here today right now because of the people we send to Washington already don't obey the Constitution. Revising it and doing anything else isn't going to change that. All right? It's us that has to stop them from violating that.
Representative Simms.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony today. In your words, and I'm going to paraphrase, is your biggest fear this will be a runaway convention? Could you speak to that?
Yeah, absolutely. And again I think we got a book Someone going to testify it We got this 800 book here that the government prints and puts out for judges There only what 4 of them put out every year And right in the beginning of it, when it talks about the convention, it says right in that government document that it was a runaway convention. And they went far beyond what they were called to do.
Just a quick follow-up.
Yes, but very brief. Very brief, please.
they made me forget my question thank you Mr. Chairman
thank you Dr. John Diamond for being with us today and for your testimony thanks everybody Sue Barber, is Sue Barber with us today? okay, what about Ellen Horton welcome to committee, you may begin when ready
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Humphrey, and members of this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee to testify against HJR2. I intend to clarify that Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States identifies Congress as the authority that controls all aspects of a constitutional convention. I'm going to quit pretending I can see. No state's role is identified prior to ratification in addressing the Constitutional Convention. Even the ratification process, however, belongs to Congress. As Article 5 itself says, the mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. The Legal Services Commission of the Ohio General Assembly came to the same conclusion. They acknowledged the ultimate control by Congress and recommended the congressional method of amending the Constitution, which is the tried and true method that has taken us this far. And their reason was the role of the states in convention is not defined. Article 5's only mention of state authority prior to the ratification process addresses the application process, not the amendment process itself. And in their analysis of HJR 2, the Legal Services Commission, this is Ohio General Assembly's team of expert legal entities, okay, submitted these comments. First, the General Assembly recommends that when Congress determines how many proposed amendments are to be ratified, it chooses ratification by the state legislatures. Okay, I'm going to stop there for a minute to point out the fact that the General Assembly identifies Congress as the entity that determines how many proposed amendments are to be ratified. Okay, so when that happens, they prefer that it chooses ratification by the state legislatures. Unfortunately, the ratification options are not chosen by the states, but by Congress. And again, Article 5 says the mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. Do the states have to accept the choice made by Congress? We have no knowing until it happens. It's never happened. We have no frame of reference. To date, all formally proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed by Congress. This method has proved itself successful 27 out of 27 times, and we found that even when we've made a mistake, this very same congressional method provides the remedy to the problem. Amendment 18 was abolished. Okay, the transfer and sale of toxifying liquors, okay? Amendment was repealed by Amendment 21. So the method, well, that's self-explanatory. I'm sorry. All right, the LSE also noted that a convention of the states for amendment has never been held under Article 5. Now, this should end the comparison between interstate conventions and an Article 5 convention. It's an apples and oranges comparison because Congress has no role in an interstate convention. The U.S. Constitution doesn't specify how an Article V convention must be conducted or how its delegates will be chosen. Further, the Constitution does not indicate whether the states that apply for a convention may limit the scope of amendments that the convention is to propose. And there are bills in this building that are being considered now to try to tell how delegates will be chosen and what amendments will be considered. The Constitution itself says that is not an option. Okay, before I run out of time, I would like you to look at the diagram, if you don't mind. Okay, I was an English teacher, can you tell? Okay, the top part deals with the method of ratification that has been done throughout the history of this nation. Okay, so I'm just going to cover that part up, okay, and we'll look at the bottom part, which is the part that applies to Article 5. Okay, the Congress, on an application of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. It makes it very clear that it is Congress that shall call this convention. It is not the states. So Article 5 demonstrates the role of Congress without – I'm sorry. Let me just finish. The Congress shall, in the first method, propose amendments to the Constitution, or by the second method, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. I thank you very much. I'm open to questions.
Yes, thank you for your testimony today. I envy your cursive writing. Mine has never been that good.
I taught that too.
Representative Gross has a question for you.
Thank you, Chair. I must say, Mrs. Horton, it is an honor to have my constitutional teacher here today. And for those of you who don't know, many, many years ago, at least a decade, Mrs. Horton taught me a course on the Constitution.
I told you I was a teacher.
And she did an amazing job, and she still does teach. So I wanted to ask you, just to repeat, and I know you kind of said this, but proponents of this bill cite the large number of previous interstate conventions as examples and precedents for how an Article V convention would be conducted. Don't these previous conventions provide the answers to the questions and the rules and the procedures? Do the interstate conventions?
Yes, they use the example of interstate conventions as examples and precedents on how an Article V convention would be conducted at the federal level. And so then they say, well, this is an example of how it would be at the federal level. Don't these conventions provide answers to the questions about the rules and procedures, or do they not? Well, actually, that's wishful thinking, because Congress, that leaves Congress out of it completely. And so what role does Congress have if an interstate convention is just as effective when it doesn involve Congress at all So if it a federal issue then Congress has to be involved and where does that leave the authority of the states According to the Constitution, it minimizes, almost disappears the influence of the states. So in answer to your question, it's Congress that handles it. Thank you for your question.
Thank you, Representative Gross. Ranking Member Humphrey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Horton, for being here today. We certainly appreciate, really, your expertise. But I have a question based off of some of the things that you mentioned. So you mentioned that the Convention of the States has never been held underneath Article 5. But given that Congress has proposed amendments 27 times without a convention, why do you think the lack of precedent automatically means the process may be too dangerous to consider?
Actually, I don't believe that that was my intent. I didn't mean to say that. Okay, all I'm saying is we have no idea what would happen, and there's a risk in that very fact. You know, if the Congress is in charge, and I have read, okay, my evidence from the Constitution that says that Congress is in charge, there's a definite risk of the state's influence being minimized. Thank you for your question.
Representative Gross? Or Representative King, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Representative Gross.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being with us today. So I've heard that proponents of this bill, along with others, they realize they may not get a convention of states, but that if there's enough resolutions, they will force Congress to act. And so I guess my question is, isn't it a safer route? And I think you did mention this in your testimony, to go through the, I guess, the amendment or the committee process with a bill and vet it. And I guess what are your thoughts on that? Is that not the safer route to go? There seems to be some risk with the unknowns if we do the Convention of States.
I thank you for that question, Representative King, and I think that you have pretty much reiterated my concerns, because we have no idea what will happen. I hesitate to say that, because I think it would be total chaos. And I think the uncertainty of everything is the reason for that. But it's clearly written in our Constitution that Congress is in charge, and you can't force Congress to defy the Constitution. You know, no resolution has the legal authority to do that, and that would just bring chaos. Thank you.
Thank you. Representative Sims, did you remember your question?
Oh, thank you. Okay. Well, thank you so much for coming in today.
Thank you for having me.
Next we will call up Jeannie Avanchich. All right, we'll move on down the list. Alicia Healy. Hello, welcome to committee.
Thank you. Chairman Hall, Vice Chairman Ferguson, Ranking Member Humphrey, and members of the House Government Oversight Committee I am Alicia Healy and I gladly give my testimony in opposition to House Joint Resolution 2 calling for an Article 5 convention to amend the Constitution of the United States I am hopeful that you, the members of this body, have good intentions, that you truly love our country, as I do, and want to see it great again. We all have our own ideas on how this can be achieved, But we must go back in history and remember from where we have come. We are celebrating the 250th year of our independence as a nation in 1776. And since 1789, we have been operating under our Constitution. Think of this. Almost two and a half centuries we have thrived under our Constitution. Why would we want to substantially change it? and by the method prescribed. I believe the Constitution is divinely inspired. At the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, after much debate, Benjamin Franklin called for prayer, saying, unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain that built it. God heard and answered the prayers of our forefathers in that time. The question is, what kind of people are we today? If we are honest, the problem lies not with our Constitution, but with ourselves and with corrupt individuals we elect. Ben Franklin said, when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that we'll hold the end of our republic. Though he thought a general government well-administered would be a blessing, he feared it could end in tyranny if the people became corrupted. it. Could we be at that point today? At our founding, we had statesmen who feared God. Now we have an elite political class that think they are gods. The founders believed you were to serve a short time in office and then go back home and work. Today, representatives think that the people should serve them. They stay in office and retire and live off the people for life. We had patriots who loved their country, had great pride in being Americans, and wanted people in the nation to prosper. Today we have too many in our Congress who hate our country, yet want all the benefits this country offers. The founders united our nation with a government of, by, and for the people, not the elite, rich, or powerful. So what's the remedy? John Adams said, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. First, we must return back to God and be a nation under God again. Psalm 33.12 says, Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Second, Thomas Jefferson said, An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people. So we must bring back civics and the incredible history of our republic. While I agree that the states must use their power to reign in the federal government, the question is, do we call for an Article V convention under the culture we have today? We only have the history from the first convention when we operated under the Articles of Confederation. That first convention gave us the Constitution. What will the second give us? All those in favor of this may have good intentions, but it been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions which often lead to unintended consequences An Article 5 convention will not solve the problems to what ails our government and nation today Only the people with God, I must add, is the only sure reliance on the preservation of our liberty. Let's preserve our Constitution and our Republic. Don't change it, just obey it. Our Constitution has stood the test of time. Let's not risk the danger of an Article V convention. The answer to the question, do we call for an Article V convention, is a resounding no. Vote no on House Joint Resolution 2. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony today and for being with us. Representative Gross has a question.
Thank you so much. Mrs. Healy, do you have a title?
Dr. Healy?
Can you, in regard to an Article V convention, can you guarantee this committee that an Article V convention would not propose amendments affecting fundamental rights such as free speech, gun rights, or elections?
No.
Thank you. Follow up. Thank you. All right. All right.
Thank you for coming in today. Next, we will call up Joseph Healy. Is Joseph Healy? Okay. Welcome to committee. You may begin when you're ready.
Thank you. Hang on. Go. Good afternoon. Chairman Hall, Vice Chairman Ferguson, Ranking Member Humphrey, and members of the House Government Oversight Committee, there is a broad range of ideological groups who have issues of concern who would want a seat at the table at a constitutional convention. Americans of every political persuasion are concerned about protecting their rights or demanding action on their issues of concern. Many of them have joined the chorus to call for a convention. They will not be kept out. Could elitist powers pit us against each other and use us as pawns to destroy our Constitution? And yes, there are power-seeking elites who have schemed for a long time to replace our Constitution altogether. We can go back to the early 20th century. Woodrow Wilson thought our Constitution was outdated. An obscure man named Edward Mandel House wrote a book, and Wilson read it. It was called Philip Drew Administrator. It was a fictional story about a military coup in America where the Constitution was suspended and an administrator was put in charge of a bureaucratic dictatorship. Wilson loved it. House became his chief advisor and his book became the blueprint for the fundamental transformation of America for decades to come. Have you heard that phrase somewhere? House also founded the Council on Foreign Relations, which to this day is the central hub of the globalist deep state in America. Rexford G. Tugwell may be unknown to us today, but he was a prominent official in FDR's administration, part of his brain trust and an architect of the New Deal. Decades later, he published a book called The Emerging Constitution, in which he proposed a replacement for the U.S. Constitution entitled A Constitution for the New States of America, which I have attached to my testimony. There was definitely no right to bear arms in it and had a heavy emphasis on emergency powers. He was working for a think tank funded by the Ford Foundation, a tax-exempt foundation also linked to the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Around the same time, Zbigniew Brzezinski, try to pronounce that, who was associated with the globalists at the CFR, wrote a book, Between Two Ages, oh, this one, Between Two Ages, where he repeatedly called for the scrapping of the Constitution and established a technocracy to rule the world. He helped form the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller and became Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. He pushed global free trade and initiated the offshoring of American manufacturing industries to other parts of the world. Fast forward to today, Robert P. George has authored a new constitution called the Conservative Constitution. Robbie George, as his associate Mark Meckler calls him, is on the Convention of States Legal Advisory Board. Robert P. George is also a member of, you guessed it, the Council on Foreign Relations. His proposed Constitution essentially nullifies the Second Amendment and has other problems. But the purpose here is not to examine the merits of his work, but to illustrate that these people really intend to radically change and replace our Constitution. And they need the opportunity of an Article V convention to carry out their plot. There is a wide variety of groups calling for an Article V convention. Conservative balanced budget groups, high-profile politicians like Rick Santorum, and media pundits like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, but he changed his mind, support the idea. Also, liberal groups like Wolfpack, who want to end corporate personhood, change campaign finance laws, as well as intellectuals like Columbia legal scholar David Posen support a convention to make our institutions more democratic. Globalist George Soros, a member of the CFR, is also funding the Move to Amend Coalition, and on and on. The Sierra Club, you name it. This is definitely a top-down, money-driven attempt by the ruling elites to push the idea of an Article 5 convention. One has to wonder if the low-level activists really understand what they are being prived to support. And what about the politicians? They say that money is the mother's milk of politics. Are the elite advocates of a con-con showering politicians with money to buy their support? Where is the money coming from for the Convention of States group? Despite Mark Meckler's claim that most of his donations are $5 and $10 contributions from little old ladies on a fixed income, a filing show that the COS fundraising entities under Meckler's control get 63% of their income from a few high-dollar donors, averaging about $100,000 each. The identity of these high-dollar donors is unknown. It's not public. We call it dark money. I'd like to know who these people are. So the choice before us is clear. We must use a state's muscle, state power, to enforce the Constitution or be seduced by the money and interest to go down the primrose past of a constitutional convention. Please vote no on House Joint Resolution 2. Thank you very much.
Thank you for coming in. And for your testimony today, Representative Gross has a question for you.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir, for being here. COS Staff Counsel Robert Kelly, 11 years ago, not only did he purport to support an Article 5, but he also supported tapping into Article 1, 2, and 3, so not just 5. So my question for you is, does Congress have the authority to set the rules of the convention?
Well, you know, the Constitution seems to indicate that they call the convention, and under the elastic clause or the necessary and proper clause it does say that they could make all laws necessary and proper for the carrying to execution of the foregoing power So technically they could get into the weeds and make a lot of rules about the convention that they call But as I say, the only precedent we have is the 1787 convention. And there were strict rules for that over the delegates, too. And yet the delegates threw out the rules, and they said they were appealing to the supreme power, the power of the people itself, to reframe their government. So I would say Congress does have power to make rules, but they aren't necessarily going to be obeyed. So thank you, Chair.
Chair, thank you so much for that answer. So if Congress then has the authority, then it's not really in the hands of the states, correct?
Well, you know, Congress under the Constitution seems to have the authority over the convention. So no, it's not really. The states are saying we can set all the rules. That's probably not true. So just to clarify. Well, you know, they might be able to buck the system and do what our founders did. I'm just saying it could be a free-for-all. So just to clarify, is that okay?
Yeah.
So just to clarify, the states are not controlling the process, correct?
No.
As much as they want to try to, the strict wording of the Constitution gives Congress the power to control the process. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Will to do so. Thank you for coming in for your testimony today. Thank you. Next, I will call up Tom Rice. Is Tom Rice with us today? Now, Mr. Rice, I see you want to testify for both. Would you like me to give you just a few extra minutes at the end of this testimony to touch on both?
I'm going to pass. If I could take – there are a few details I would like to touch upon with HB 67. So if I could defer and just have my five minutes, that would be great.
Five minutes for HDR two, please. Okay. Is that okay? Okay.
Well, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Tom Rice. I'm a former American history teacher, now retired. I reside in Pickerington, Ohio. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify against House Joint Resolution 2. This piece of legislation calls for the convening of an Article 5 convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution for the purpose of imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and congressional term limits. Concerning the first two parts of this proposal, the Constitution, as it is already written, already restrains the federal government and limits its power and jurisdiction. According to the Supreme Law of the Lamb, the Congress can only spend taxpayer money to provide for the common defense and general welfare, as described in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 18 of the Constitution. Additional handcuffing of the federal government is also provided within the Tenth Amendment, which declares that an item not indicated in the Constitution, the federal government, cannot become involved in this area, such powers being reserved exclusively to the states or to the people. In short, the Tenth Amendment is telling the federal government, if we forgot anything, you can't do that either. Let look very quickly at the third part of House Joint Resolution 2 This calls for congressional term limits In actuality we already have term limits at the congressional level They're called elections. Every two years in the House of Representatives, every six years in the Senate. The proposed bill, we do not really need the proposed bill. The deficiency that we have right now in America is not in the Constitution. The deficiency lies with those unfaithful congressmen who, putting their left hand on the Bible and raising their right hand, these unfaithful congressmen who fail to keep their oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God. Finally, I fear convening the Article V Convention for any reason whatsoever due to the danger of a runaway convention. The best example of a runaway convention would be the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, whose job description was, and I shall quote, for the sole purpose, sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Upon commencement of the convention in May of 1787, America's founding fathers boarded up the windows at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, held their deliberations in secret, and they trashcanned the Articles of Confederation, and they hammer out the Constitution. The result of this runaway convention, like I said, was, thank God, it was very fortunate for the American people, was the Constitution. Would we be so lucky in a modern-day convention? I fear we would not. Even President Ronald Reagan, he also feared the concept of a runaway convention. In the public papers of President Ronald Reagan, dated July 2nd of 1982, the Gipper said the following, and I'll quote, Well, constitutional conventions are prescribed as a last resort because once it's open, they could take up any number of things. In short, the Constitution needs to be obeyed, not dangerously tinkered with by modern-day innovators. And I'm hoping during, if there's a question and answer session, you want to ask me hopefully more about this concept of congressional term limits. But for the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to vote in opposition to House Joint Resolution 2. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Rice. Representative Gross.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, sir.
I don't know if you're Dr. Rice, but to me you're Dr. Rice.
My grandfather was.
Thank you so much.
Just call me Tom, please.
Thank you for your testimony today. So kind of sort of in the vein of a quote-unquote runaway convention, if the delegates violate the rules, the limits set by the states, who has the legal authority to remove them or invalidate their proposals?
You've got everything upside down.
Okay, go ahead.
And this is why I deferred on HB 67. Under the Constitution, Representative, the convention has two jobs. Number one, they apply for a convention. And if two-thirds or 34 states agree with this application, then Congress then calls a convention for hearing amendments. OK the second job the states have is once the delegates to the convention are selected and they selected not by the states because those powers are not given to the states in Article V Please read Article V It only like 139 words okay But they don't have the power – the states don't have the power to – once the convention is applied for, then the Congress, like it's been said, they'll write the rules, the regulations, selection of delegates, You know, the duration of the convention, the funding of it, you name it. And then once the amendments are hammered out, then the states have the power to say either, yes, we approve the amendments that have been sent to us, or we say, thumbs down. They have no other power. You know, the 13 years I taught American history, I would say to my students, beware of three basic principles. Number one, Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Premise number two, words have meaning. Premise number three, the Constitution means what it says. Those were the powers that the states have are a convention. They apply for a convention. And then once the amendments are sent to them, they say either yes or no. They play no other role in the convention process. They don't have that power.
Just very briefly, please.
Thank you.
So the states have no ability to choose what delegates would go from their state.
That's correct, because those words are not given to the states in Article 5.
Where do we find, though, that the power then, who would make those determinations?
This gentleman before me, Mr. Ely, gave you the answer. It's in Clause 13 of Article 1, Section 8, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Congress then has the power to do these things. And we know an Article 5 convention is constitutional, but the rules and regulations, they're not indicated in Article 5, are they?
So who has those powers?
The Congress has these powers. OK. But then even on top of that, guess what? The Congress could lay down rules to the delegates at the convention and they could scrap the entire rules, the whole set of rules.
It's a Pandora's box. OK. The fear of a runaway convention is very, very dangerous.
And you know what? Why take that fear and that chance? You've got the restraints. You've got the handcuffs right here with the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said it best. He said, in questions of power, let us hear no more of confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution. We have the solution right now. You know, both sides of this controversy, they just want constitutional government. If you want it, then implement it. Exercise it. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Gross. Representative Troy. Thank you, Mr.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rice. And as I can tell, you're a student of history. So I guess the – I don't disagree with your premise, but if the idea of an Article V convention is so abhorrent, why do you think Madison included that in the Constitution when it was written? I mean, I see it as an alternative, a worst-case scenario to – and Representative King had referred to, and she didn't use these words, but there's two ways to amend the Constitution. There's the congressional route where, what, two-thirds of –
The House and two-thirds of the Senate.
And three-quarters of the states.
And then once those, and you see, but that's a situation where one amendment is provided, okay? And it can be limited. And then what? Two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, they approve it, they send it to the states. Typically in the 20th century, they gave the states seven years, and then if three-fourths or 38 of the states then agree with that amendment, okay? Then that amendment is part of the Constitution. But you can limit the process with the congressional amendment route. With the convention route, it's anything goes. Keep in mind the Articles of Confederation proposed in 1777, not approved until 1781. Maryland becomes the last state to approve it. It required unanimous consent, all 13 states. Then in Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, to amend the Articles of Confederation, you needed unanimous consent, all 13 states. What's the Philadelphia Convention do? They trashcan the Articles of Confederation. They give us the Constitution, but they move the goalposts in the process, don't they? Because we look at Article 7 in the Constitution, it says if nine states approve the Constitution, it's ratified. So I hope I answered your question there, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Troy. Thank you, Mr. Rice, for your testimony. We'll bring you back up here shortly. Next, we'll call up Sandra Ryan. Sandra Ryan with us today? All right. What about Barbara?
Yes.
Her husband is in the hospital.
She couldn't make it.
Okay. We will be praying for her and her husband. Mr. Tuttle, I believe that brings you up to the microphone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd love a chance to answer the James Madison question from just a moment ago, if that's possible later. But Chairman Hall, members of the committee, thank you very much for allowing me to testify against H.J.R. 2. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to be pretty blunt. Please, as Mr. Rice said, do not open Pandora's box on our Constitution by supporting an experimental convention with potentially serious unintended consequences. We can be sure that a convention would be a prime target for highly partisan activist billionaires and a complicit media to try to derail and insert their own agenda. Whether it's term limits, balanced budget, or any other intended reason, an Article V convention would be a huge risk. So let's start with what we know to be true for sure. However, it's an undeniable fact that there has never been an Article V convention in our history, and there's never been any valid precedent, which I'll talk about in a second. It's an undeniable fact that there are no agreed-upon rules for a convention, as has been brought up before, which was confirmed by the Congressional Research Service in a series of reports between 2012 and 2017. We don't know who the delegates would be. We don't know what the voting rules would be. We don't know what the rules for delegate selection would be or even how many delegates there would be. There are zero rules that are agreed upon. There are suggestions that have been made, but there are no agreed upon rules. We don't even know when a convention would happen. How long would it take to get 34 states to apply for this resolution They got 19 or 20 now One of them may be relitigated but that took 14 years So we not likely to have a convention in for another 10 years at least. What's the political landscape going to look like in 10 more years? It's an undeniable fact that there is a long list of credible and compelling experts who warn us that a convention would be a huge risk. Compare them with the list of, respectfully, politicians and talk show hosts that the Convention of States lobby likes to promote, at least three of our founders, three Supreme Court justices, and I've got a list here of more than 45 legal and constitutional scholars across the country who say that a convention cannot be limited and it's a very dangerous risk. Unfortunately, in the midst of all of this, the assumptions that the Convention of States Lobby is asking you to make are also, unfortunately, just simply false. They're asking you to believe that there have been many previous conventions, to an earlier question, that create an understanding of how a convention would be run. There is no valid precedent for an Article V convention among them. It turns out, and please follow up and ask me more about this due to a lack of time, but those conventions were very small. They were a small number of states. There was only one convention that had more than nine states attending, except for the 1787 convention. And most importantly, it was not a federal function. None of those were federal functions. And federal functions are governed by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, which I will address much further in my HB 67 testimony. So while convention lobby assures you that the state legislatures would have complete control over delegate selection and convention rules, the courts, it turns out, have resoundingly ruled against that claim, and I will address that directly in my HB 67 testimony in a few minutes. So I believe that it would be very unwise for this committee or for any state legislature, for that matter, to allow activist billionaires and radical partisans on either side of the political spectrum to get their hands on our Constitution. because as Mr. Rice and several of the other testimonies have stated, once that constitutional convention is convened, it cannot be controlled, and that's what the legal scholars have told us over and over again. So I urge you to vote no on HGR 2 to protect our constitution from this very risky experimental convention. Thank you again. Look forward to answering any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. Is there any questions? One, please.
Please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Tuttle, for being here today. What do you mean by unintended consequences to a convention, and what do you see most likely as an unintended consequence?
Representative Gross, thank you for that, through the Chair to Representative Gross. I see two types of unintended consequences. One of them is that, and I'll address this again in my HB 67, if a convention is convened, there are going to be a lot of legal battles. The courts will be clogged with discrepancies and disagreements on who in charge of what as we talked about The Constitution itself is just not clear So we going to bog down our courts and put the courts in a very difficult situation And please forgive me, I don't know for sure whether there are any lawyers in the group, and you may know even if you're not a lawyer, about the political question doctrine. The political question doctrine goes back to Baker v. Carr. A number of years ago, the Supreme Court said, there are some discrepancies between branches of government that we don't want to get in the middle of, and so we're going to stay out of it. It's nonjudiciable, is what they said. That's the political question doctrine. A battle between the states and Congress would certainly fit that bill and would be a very good reason for a lot of court intervention. And secondly, and most importantly, we could get amendments that we don't expect. So not only could they go beyond what is in the limits of this HDR-2, but think even within HDR-2 limits, it says limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Think about how broad that is. They could limit any function of the federal government, and that would be within the bounds of this resolution. So, for example, think of just a couple of examples. They could limit the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law. They could limit jurisdiction over drugs and legalized drugs. They could limit the jurisdiction over virtually anything. A big one would be, think about the right of reproductive freedom shall not be infringed. That's one example. So anything that you could limit the federal government, a really big one, the Electoral College. The Electoral College has to be approved by Congress, as we saw on January 6th, several years ago. Congress has to approve the votes by the Electoral College. To take Congress out of the Electoral College would limit the jurisdiction of the federal government. And if you went to a national popular vote, for example, which 18 states have already signed on to, very likely, that's another example of an unintended consequence. So I hope that helps.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. Before, Representative Troy, do you have a question?
Please ask me about change. Mr. Tuttle actually said he would love to address the James Madison question, and I'm reading some of his background here. And it's called the father of the Constitution. Yes, sir. And he did vociferously argue against including this. How did it happen? I mean, was this one of these compromises that had to be agreed to to get the Constitution through? Like, no matter how big your state is, you get two senators, right? Yes, sir.
So, through the chair, Representative Troy. James Madison actually argued vociferously against the wording of Article 5 on September 10th and September 15th, according to his own notes. He said that the language of Article 5 should be reconsidered. It needed to be redone. And he said the reasons were because we don't know what form it would take and we don't know what the rules would be. That's in Madison's notes. So he was definitely against the language that we ended up with with Article 5. And by the way, George Mason, who was considered the father of the convention route in Article 5, remember, he stormed out of the convention and refused to sign it. So he must not have been too sure that this would be a remedy for an out-of-control government. So Madison was against it and the reason he probably wasn able to stop it they overruled him This is September 15th The convention ended on September 17th They were stuck in a hot room in the middle of summer in Philadelphia, and they were anxious to get out of there, and they didn't feel like arguing anymore about it. They cooked the can down the road, although Madison was against it. So that would be my suggested answer to that.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. I want to make sure I do this correctly. is there anybody else here to testify against HJR 2 in person? Okay, so that will conclude the fourth hearing for HJR 2. Mr. Tuttle, stay up there because House Bill 67 is called up next for its fourth hearing, and you may continue your testimony on this as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, members of the committee, appreciate being here. I've spent an awful lot of time on this. I've been studying Article 5 for more than four years after I retired, also a Constitution instructor along with Mrs. Horton. But we appreciate this opportunity to testify. So this bill, HB 67, is a relatively new tactic by a well-funded lobbying organization to try to convince legislators like yourselves that an Article 5 convention would be safe because you can appoint and control the delegates. This bill is just a placebo, however, to make you feel better, but does not solve the problem. Here is the problem. As I alluded to before, before a convention was convened, there would be a lot of court activity and court challenges, probably lots of them. So what are the courts going to say? Do we have any clues to what the courts would say if there was a challenge about states' ability to appoint delegates or control the delegates? Absolutely. First, hopefully you all have had a chance, or maybe not, to look at the LSC analysis of HB 67, where they point out that in Article 2, Section 27 of the Ohio Constitution, it specifically says that the Ohio legislature may not appoint anyone other than those specifically granted for them to appoint in the Constitution. And the LSC points out that that is not in the Ohio Constitution, that they can appoint delegates to a constitutional convention. And therefore, we're looking at this being totally, this would violate the Ohio Constitution. Any attempt to appoint delegates by the legislature would almost certainly be struck down in the state of Ohio. Second, federal courts have clearly demonstrated that they would never allow states to limit or control a convention or their delegates. For more than 180 years, in at least seven major Supreme Court cases specific to Article V, federal courts have held that Article V is a federal constitutional process. States may participate by applying for a convention or ratifying amendments, as was pointed out earlier, but they cannot limit, control, condition, supplement, or dictate the rules of the amendment process. They certainly cannot be – this certainly cannot be ignored, and I would hope due to time someone would ask a follow-up about those court cases. Finally, there's ample reason and precedent to suggest that Congress, as has been mentioned before, actually has the power to determine delegate selection. So here we're talking about the courts again. Whether based on the Necessary and Proper Clause, which was brought up before, which is cited by the Congressional Research Service and multiple legal scholars as granting the power to Congress, or whether you're looking at an extensive body of case law from federal and state courts, like it or not, Congress will almost certainly intervene with backing from the courts. After applying for a convention, the states can only sit back and watch and wait to see what happens. Let me give you a quick example of what I'm talking about here by a federal case that says what I just pointed out. An example is Dillon v. Gloss, 1921, and here's what it said. Quote, as a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require. And Article V is no exception to the rule. Now, there are numerous other court cases, Idaho v. Freeman being a big one, that use that same terminology. Congress has the ability to append subsidiary matters of detail to their federal function, which in this case would be a call for a convention. So they could say how many delegates there are going to be, where the delegates would come from, what the criteria for delegates would be. So neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Ohio Constitution grants these powers to the states. And across every major Article V case, the Supreme Court articulates a consistent and clear principle. When the Constitution assigns a federal function, states may not control, supplement, constrain it unless it is explicitly granted that power in the Constitution. This is a federal function, not a mere gathering of states or an interstate convention, as many predecessors have been. States cannot control or limit a federal function. So please, members of the committee, do not be fooled. This bill will not be enforceable. It will not make a convention safe. It's nothing but a placebo to help convince uninformed legislators who haven't had the opportunity to hear both sides that a convention could be controlled and limited. It cannot be enforced. So thank you for your time.
I would be very happy to answer any questions. Thank you again for your testimony on House Bill 67. Representative Workman and then Representative Gross.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir, for being here to discuss this bill. This is a little bit new to me, so learning as we go here. But I guess I question here, one of the pillars, I believe, of the Convention of States is full autonomy on our elected officials. So one of the things that they address is a bureaucracy, an unaccountable bureaucracy. So this bill in particular seems to delegate the state's state legislators' authority over to an advisory committee. Can you talk a little bit more about the process of that authority?
Thank you, Representative Workman, through the chair. Basically, the ability of the states to get involved in the selection or control of delegates in any way is prohibited both by the Ohio Constitution and by a body of case law that says that they can't get involved at all. So whether or not they do it through a commission, which, and I'm very familiar with the resolution, says they're going to create a commission, the commission's going to keep a really close eye on the delegates to this convention. And if they do anything wrong, they're going to either recall them, they're going to correct them, or they're going to slap them with the third degree felony. None of that is possible because both the Ohio Constitution and an extensive body of federal case law says that the states cannot limit or control their delegates in any way I hope that answers the question Thank you Representative Workman Representative Gross
Thank you, Chair. Thank you again, Mr. Tuttle, for being here.
In the last HB67 testimony hearing, Dr. Ferris answered a question about state control of delegates. with the recent Supreme Court case, Chiafalo v. Washington. As a precedent for state control of the delegates to a convention, is Chiafalo not a decisive precedent?
Thank you, Representative Gross, through the chair, to Representative Gross. I believe you asked Dr. Ferris that question, and he responded with Chiafalo v. Washington. Yes, sir, thank you. as the precedent. Chaffalo v. Washington, I've done extensive research on Chaffalo v. Washington, and it is definitely not a precedent that is valid in any way. Most interestingly, and let me pull this out, it turns out that the Convention of States has a legal team. And that legal team has participated in six federal and state court cases on various aspects of the Constitution since 2020. Chaffalo v. Washington was in 2020. It was their first of six. Now, they wrote amicus briefs in all six of those federal and state cases arguing before, in this case, the Supreme Court in Chaffalo v. Washington in 2020. One of the reasons I was surprised that Dr. Ferris would bring that up is in their actual amicus brief, this is the amicus brief from Convention of States on Chaffalo v. Washington, their conclusion reads as follows, and I quote, the court should carefully limit its holding to presidential electors, clarifying that the decision is not applicable to others performing federal functions. They're clearly saying here, Supreme Court, do not allow Chaffalo v. Washington to be used as a precedent for any other type of federal function, yet here they are using Chaffalo v. Washington as a potential precedent. I would suggest that that shows, I mean, again, I said I was going to be blunt, and a bit of desperation on their parts if they couldn't come up with a better case to use as a precedent than one where they had argued the exact opposite to the Supreme Court. Secondly, Chaffalo actually strengthens our argument that states cannot control a convention. In Chaffalo, Supreme Court Justice Kagan, who wrote the deciding opinion for a unanimous court, pointed out that the ability to support and appoint, or excuse me, ability to appoint and direct electors, which is what was at risk in that case, came directly from the explicit language of the Constitution. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution says that state legislators shall appoint electors in a manner of their choosing. And they used that explicit language in the Constitution in Chafalo to give states the powers over those electors. She also pointed out in that decision that there were several other places in the Constitution. I don't want to take too much time. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, to give states specific powers over federal functions. Notice that there is no such power given to the states with respect to an Article V convention And I think the absence of that power granting in the Constitution itself speaks volumes When the founders wanted to give the states control over a federal function, they put it explicitly in the Constitution, and it's simply not here. And one last thing.
Just please be brief, please.
Yeah. Choc Lowe v. Washington was, as I mentioned before, the first of six cases that the Convention of States legal team argued before federal and state courts. It's important to know that not only were their arguments rejected unanimously in Shoffelow v. Washington, so they got the conservatives and the progressives on the Supreme Court to agree on something, which is very hard to do. That's how far off they were. But they then went on to be rejected in four of the five additional cases that they've argued since 2020. So the COS legal team arguing cases before the federal and state courts have lost five out of six times. I would suggest that that's not a very good recipe for an organization that I would want to put too much credibility in in interpreting the Constitution or, frankly, in predicting what the courts are going to say about an argument that may come up.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tuttle, for coming in today. Mr. Rice, if you'd like to come back up to give your five minute testimony. I was trying to get as many testimony in without questions because members had to leave. So that's why I apologize for. Mr. Rice, begin when.
Excuse me.
Begin when ready. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'll try to keep my comments brief. I appreciate this opportunity to testify against House Bill 67. This measure sometimes is referred to as a faithful delegate bill. It calls for the convening of an Article V convention for proposing an amendment to the Constitution for the purpose of the states establishing appointment procedures for what we call a CONCON or Constitutional Convention. Under Article V of the Constitution, the states simply do not have this power. This proposal is a fairy tale. According to Article V in the Constitution concerning a convention, the states have only two powers. Power number one, they apply for a convention. Power number two, they either approve or reject amendments that have been submitted to them. And let's examine more in detail these two premises. Premise number one, the states apply for a convention. If two-thirds or 34 states agree to this application, then Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. Premise number two, the states either approve or reject amendments that have been submitted to them. After the convention determines the amendments, they are submitted to the states for ratification. If three-fourths of the states or 38 of the states, their state legislatures or state conventions ratify these amendments, they become part of the Constitution. The, in Article, they become part of the Constitution provided the delegates to the convention do not alter this rule of ratification. In Article V of the Constitution, the states have no additional powers to exercise during a convention. The 1787 convention was a runaway convention as we discussed previously This event such an event is not unprecedented in American history It happened nearly 240 years ago and could unfortunately happen again perhaps subjecting the American people to many unpleasant surprises and unintended consequences We know that a convention is authorized in Article V of the Constitution, but the rules, regulations, and procedures are not indicated in Article V of the Constitution. Concerning a convention, who would make the following determinations? The funding of the convention, its venue, length of duration, selection of delegates, rules of ratification, and all other rules and regulations, etc. The answer to this question simply is the Congress. We find that in the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this power is given to the Congress because we find in Clause 18, just referred to, that Congress has given the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying and execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution. These powers belong to the Congress, not to the states. In short, the Constitution needs to be adhered to, not amended. For the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to vote in opposition to House Bill 67. Thank you.
Thank you again, Mr. Rice, for being with us today. Any questions? See none. Thank you for being with us, and thank you for your testimonies. Pierre Wolfe. I believe, Pierre, I believe you're the last one today, and there might be one or two more, but Pierre, welcome to committee. You may begin when ready.
Thank you very much. What an extraordinary opportunity to be here. I'm a naturalized citizen, and I think that this is an incredible process, and the expertise that has come before me is just overwhelming. My name is Pierre Wolfe. I'm a resident of Columbus. I'm here today to provide opponent testimony on Ohio House Bill 67 because it is inseparable from and intended to facilitate Ohio House Joint Resolution 2. While HB 67 is presented as a procedural measure establishing how Ohio would appoint delegates to a constitutional convention, its real purpose is to prepare the state for participation in Article 5, Convention of the States. That convention is being triggered by HJR 2, which purportly calls for congressional term limits. The problem is that once such a convention is called, there are no enforceable rules guaranteeing. It will remain limited to those topics. Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution has never been used to convene a conventional state, so there is no precedent governing how delegates would be chosen, how votes would be counted, or what proposals could ultimately emerge. Supporters claim HB 67 would create faithful delegates, but a state law cannot bind the actions of a national convention once it convenes. HB 67 provides the illusion of control over a process that could rewrite large portions of the U.S. Constitution. This is an extraordinary and dangerous risk. History also teaches us that constitutional conventions can exceed their original mandate. The 1787 convention in Philadelphia was initially convened only to amend the Articles of Confederation, yet it produced an entirely new constitution. If a modern convention were to occur, it could open the door to proposals affecting fundamental rights, voting rights, civil liberties, or the separation of powers. Even if Ohio intends to limit its delegates, other states would not necessarily be bound by those restrictions. Once the convention begins, the scope of potential amendments becomes unpredictable. Finally, I would urge the committee to consider that the Constitution already provides a clear, stable amendment process through Congress and the states. That process has served our country for more than two centuries and has produced critical amendments to expand freedom and democracy. Risking that stability through an untested convention process is unnecessary and potentially destabilizing. For this reason, I respectfully urge the committee to reject House Bill 67 and the broader effort to represent represented by Ohio House Joint Resolution 2 Ohio should not help open the door to a constitutional convention that could put the rights and freedoms of all Americans at risk Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer your questions, although probably not as well as this gentleman and ladies.
No, we thank you for coming in today and being a part. Rep. Gross will have the last question for today.
Oh, thank you, Chair. I should have just had a hearing for up growth. I don't own her. I do not know her, even though we're from the same county. I know. Thank you so much, sir, for being here today. I know you didn't talk much about Madison, but I just wondered if you could surmise a little bit. Madison, after participating in the 1987 convention, he then said, after I did this, I don't think we ought to do this again. Can you, are you familiar studying Madison enough to wonder, I mean can you surmise why do you think Madison said well I don think we should do this again I mean he the father of the Constitution said we should not participate in this again Do you have any opinion about that Representative Gross thank you
Chairman, thank you. I am not a scholar of Madison. I can only surmise that he foresaw potential dangers to opening up a constitutional convention.
Yes. Follow-up? Are you done? One very brief follow-up. Okay, brief follow-up. So is it your premise then that perhaps, back to what the attorney for the COS people said, that now that they want to open up Article 1, 2, 3, and 5, and then Centaurum wants to have an Article 5 convention every five years if it doesn't work, that perhaps Madison could see what was going to happen in the future?
Yes, I think we can take it even in modern context. We are so divided politically this day and age. We so polarized I am greatly concerned looking at history as far as back 80 years 90 years ago 1933 when the rules were placed in front of the German assembly and the unintended consequences of having changed their laws I would think that that is it's a great danger I can tell you because I did not submit my other testimonial but the law is called the enabling act of 1933 and it's once that was put into place, then history took its turn and it turned to the worse. I really think we have to be very careful not to open up this convention. There are no rules. If there are no rules, anything goes. You open up the genie out of the bottle and you can't put
it back. Thank you so much. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Thank you.
No, absolutely not. Nope.
We gave you guys still a lot of time today, and we are way behind. We appreciate it. But that will conclude the fourth hearing on House Bill 67. Seeing no further items on the agenda, this committee stands adjourned.