February 11, 2013
Calls Needed Immediately
to the
House of Representatives Rules Committee
to ask for a
“NO” Vote
on HB2328 – Interstate Compact to apply for an Article V Convention

Compact for America is pushing a complicated interstate compact to apply to Congress to call an Article V Convention also known as a Con Con.

MESSAGE: Vote NO on HB2328 the Interstate Compact for an Article V Convention. It is full of bad ideas, won’t achieve a balanced federal budget, and could put our Constitution at risk.

House of Representatives Rules Committee
Eddie Farnsworth     (602) 926-5735
David M. Gowan Sr.     (602) 926-3312
Rick Gray     (602) 926-5993
Albert Hale     (602) 926-4323
Javan “J.D.” Mesnard      (602) 926-4481
Martin J. Quezada     (602) 926-5911
Bob Robson     (602) 926-5549
Andy Tobin     (602) 926-5172
Bruce Wheeler     (602) 926-3300

efarnsworth@azleg.gov, dgowan@azleg.gov, rgray@azleg.gov, ahale@azleg.gov, jmesnard@azleg.gov, mquezada@azleg.gov, brobson@azleg.gov, atobin@azleg.gov, bwheeler@azleg.gov

  • HB2328 proposes an Interstate Compact to apply for an Article V Convention and is a complicated way to call for a Constitutional Convention — a Con Con.
  • Article V Conventions in the Constitution are for the purpose of Proposing AmendmentS (in the plural) and in Article V there is no way to limit the agenda of the Convention. Right now, we see many seeking to take away our gun rights. A Convention could be the way to accomplish their goals. Former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger stated, “. . . there is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.”
  • Article V gave Congress the powers to issue the Call for the Convention, and under that authority Congress will set the rules. HB2328 attempts to circumvent that provision through complicated state and congressional legislation. However, once a Convention is convened it can adopt its own rules regardless of attempts limit them.
  • The Interstate Compacts are authorized in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 10 but, “No state shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state…”. Why would the Senate under Harry Reid ever allow a compact for a Balanced Budget Amendment to be approved by Congress?
  • The Compact contains many bad ideas like appointing the governors from each state to be the sole delegate at the Convention. Governors continually have their hands out asking for federal dollars for their states. Why would they favor a BBA which could cut them off from federal dollars?
  • The Compact actually authorizes an increase in the federal debt limit to 105 percent of the actual debt on the effective date of the amendment, so we immediately start out with more, not less, debt.
  • Under the Compact Congress could increase the national debt at any time if a simple majority of the states agree. State Legislatures get significant federal dollars for their state budgets. If they vote to limit federal debt, their state funding would probably be the first to be cut.
  • The Compact does not prohibit tax increases, so Congress can balance the budget by raising taxes with a two-thirds majority.
  • A Balanced Budget Amendment won’t work to solve our nation’s debt problem.
  1. Balanced Budget Amendments of individual states are not a model for a federal amendment because the states cannot print money to cover their deficits.
  2. The Balanced Budget doesn’t deal with the overspending problems caused by the Federal Reserve System, or by coining a Trillion Dollar Coin.
  3. The Balanced Budget Amendment exempts periods of wartime, but the U.S. has been continually at war since Desert Storm in 1991.
  4. The Balanced Budget Amendment gives an extraordinary new constitutional power to the President to “propose” (write the first draft) of the federal budget. Why would we want to give Obama an important new constitutional power?