Rep. Brett Hildabrand wants to host a party called Con-Con
The Kansas City Star
In case you were not aware our state Rep Brett Hildabrand (R-Shawnee) is making national news with a big party he wants to throw. It’s called Con-Con (Not to be confused with the Can-Can, a dance made very popular in France.)
Con-Con is short for the Article V Constitutional Convention that is allowed under our US Constitution. It is a little known provision of the US Constitution that allows for states to introduce NEW amendments to our US Constitution. In order to do this 34 states have to agree to enact a new Constitutional Convention. Currently there are 17 and our Kansas is one – lead by..you guessed it Rep. Hildabrand.
Now I read the amendments being submitted and in 6 point font they seem to be all about balancing the budget. Even I agree that balancing the budget is a great goal, however, the danger in this convention is that once it starts, our entire US Constitution is at risk of being edited and new amendments can be introduced and approved having nothing to do with balancing the budget.
Like what you ask? How about things like the personhood amendment or amendments on illegal immigration or gay marriage – issues that our nation is deeply divided on. (Insert cheering and groaning depending on what side you are on.)
The drink of choice they will be serving at the party will be P-O-W-E-R.
The very first Constitutional Convention that gave us the document that we know and love. The number of Constitutional Conventions that have happened since…wait for it….ZERO.
Now Rep. Hildabrand is really starting to scare me and here’s why – there is a pattern developing of attempting to exert power over the Federal Government at the state level. Examples are as follows:
Introducing the TSA bill that disregards the federal government security screening standards at airports so that Kansas has its own standards.
Sponsoring the 2nd amendment protection act that finds any government regulations of the 2nd amendment “unconstitutional” and therefore “unenforceable”.
Now sponsoring Kansas in allowing states rights to add or edit our US Constitution.
It may be for the greater good of balancing the budget, a goal we can all get on board with, however altering our US Constitution is serious especially when there is no guarantee that when this party kicks off it can be contained.
Here’s an idea Rep. Hildabrand-if you want to be part of the Federal Government so bad how about if you run for a higher office? Stop attempting to overreach the power of the state government.
I’ve included this letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger on his views of an Article V Constitutional Convention.
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
June 22, 1983
Chambers of Chief Justice Burger Retired
I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time. I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.” With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation. Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a “miracle.” Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly 68 Fairmont Alton, IL 62002