Con Con/Article V





You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness . . .3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. . . .I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr

James Madison letter to George Turberville, 2 November 1788


Bush, Burger, Schlafly
Phyllis sworn in as a Member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution, July 30, 1985

Letters from retired Chief Justice Warren Burger opposing a Constitutional Convention:

 June 22, 1988

 August 25, 1986

 April 8, 1986

 Burger Voices Doubts on Constitutional Convention

(Note: Commission Meetings prior to the swearing in were held in the U.S. Supreme Court building.)



ConCon Brochure


George Washington, James Madison, and Ben Franklin did a magnificent job of
producing our United States Constitution.

Washington and Madison both called it a “miracle.”
It has lasted over 220 years, protecting our liberty while accommodating our geographic, economic, and population expansion.

“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” — Albert Einstein


Article V — Repeal Amendment Debate
held on March 1, 2011 at the
Sheraton Clayton Plaza Hotel, St. Louis, MO.

Say NO to Rewriting the U.S. Constitution!

Say NO to Rewriting the US Constitution!


Independence Hall

Independence Hall

The following states have rescinded their resolutions calling for a Con Con:

  1. Idaho (1999)
  2. Utah (2001)
  3. North Dakota (2001)
  4. Virginia (2004)
  5. South Carolina (2004)
  6. Wyoming — HEJR0003 (2009)
  7. Missouri — SCR 10 (2009) did not pass
  1. New Hampshire — HCR28 (2010)
  2. Delaware — HCR60 (2016)
  3. Maryland — (2017)
  4. New Mexico — (2017)
  5. Nevada — (2017)


NEWS about Con Con (convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution)

  • Heritage Foundation opposes this “imprudent and potentially dangerous” idea, Feb. 10, 2011
  • Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli admits that a convention cannot be limited, Jan. 17, 2011