For Immediate Release: March 23, 2022
Contact: Ryan Hite, Communications Director
SCR 25 Considered by Committee on Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions & Ethics
ST. LOUIS, MO: Phyllis Schlafly Eagles Research Director Jordan Henry testified this week in the Missouri Senate against a resolution calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention on term limits.
Ed Martin, president of the organization, said: “We are proud to continue the legacy of our founder, Phyllis Schlafly, in opposing calls for a new Constitutional Convention (Con Con). Subjecting our incredible Constitution to a raucous political convention would be bad news for We the People. The solution isn’t to change the Constitution, but to make those in government obey it!”
- Interview with Jordan Henry on the Real Talk Radio Network (February 24 Podcast ‘Amped in the AM,’ Timestamp: 2:49:15)
- Read Mr. Henry’s testimony at this link and below:
Dear Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Committee,
I strongly urge you to vote “NO” on SCR 25. I am the Director of Research for Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, but I am also a resident of Missouri. As a Missourian, I know that we are a people who love our Constitution and the freedoms it secures for us. I must testify against any legislation that seeks an Article V Constitutional Convention because such a convention would put our constitution in jeopardy.
Proponents of a convention make many promises about how a convention would go, but they have no real evidence to back up their claims. The 143 words of Article V say very little about how a convention would work, aside from the fact that Congress would call it and determine the ratification process. Proponents also point to a mock convention that the Convention of States project held in Williamsburg, VA in 2016. However, proponents will not tell you that the mock convention was essentially rigged in their favor. They hand-picked all of the delegates to the convention, which certainly would not happen in reality. All three of the California delegates and the one New York delegate were Republicans, which also would never happen if a convention was actually held. Proponents also claim that other smaller “Conventions of States” have happened throughout American history. Again, the real problem comes when a convention must be called by Congress, which is what an Article V convention would require. Clearly, the outcome of a constitutional convention can only be a matter of speculation because one has never happened under Article V.
If we cannot guarantee that there will be adequate safeguards on a convention, we must assume that all sides of the political spectrum will do everything within their power to have their own little chunk of the Constitution. The gun control lobby will seize the opportunity destroy the Second Amendment, as Supreme Court Justice Stephens advocated in his book On Handguns and the Law.The abortion lobby will seize the opportunity to insert an abortion-on-demand amendment into the Constitution. No amount of promises from the proponents of a constitutional convention will be able to stop the Nancy Pelosis and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the country from trying to seize control. If they do not listen to the states now, what makes people think they will do so in a convention where they are granted even more power?
To support an Article V Constitutional Convention is to underestimate the power of the grassroots to make real change. No one denies that it will be hard to rein in Congressional overreach. It is going to take the hard work of thousands of tireless patriots. However, I firmly believe that the voters can force Congress to listen to us. There is no silver bullet like a Constitutional Convention that can make everything easy for us. Although many proponents have the best of intentions, there is a lot of understandable confusion surrounding this important issue. I would be happy to act as a resource in whatever way possible for the members of this committee.
I strongly urge you to vote “NO” on SCR 25.