To: Jerry Anderson, Johnny Anderson, Patrice Arent, Stewart Barlow, Roger Barrus, Jim Bird, Melvin Brown, Kay Christofferson, Tim Cosgrove, Richard Cunningham, Brad Dee, Susan Duckworth, Jim Dunnigan, Becky Edwards, Steve Eliason, Gage Froerer, Brian Greene, Craig Hall, hemingway, Greg Hughes, Don Ipson, Ken Ivory, John Knotwell, Brad Last, David Lifferth, Rebecca Lockhart, John G. Mathis, Daniel McCay, Michael Mckell, Carol Moss, Merrill Nelson, Jim Nielson, mnoel, Lee Perry, Jeremy Peterson, Dixon Pitcher, Marie Poulson, Paul Ray, Edward Redd, Marc Roberts, Angela Romero, Doug Sagers, Dean Sanpei, Jennifer M. Seelig, Lowry Snow, Robert Spendlove, Jon Stanard, Keven John Stratton, Earl Tanner, Curt Webb, John Westwood, Ryan Wilcox, Larry Wiley, Brad Wilson,
Date: Mon Mar 10 12:36:24 MDT 2014
HJR 8 is a resolution which, if passed through the Utah Legislature, will result in Utah being added to a growing number of States which have applied to the United States Congress for the call of a convention.
This is the most important bill Utah’s legislature will consider this year since the fate of the U.S. Constitution is at stake.
While balancing the budget is important, I am opposed to a convention of states:
The Constitution is not the problem . The problem lies with those who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. All of the challenges we face as a nation would be resolved quickly if state and national leadership would apply the principles of the Constitution according to the original intent of the men who created it.
I have NO confidence that another amendment to the constitution will improve the behavior of the federal government. Congress already has the power to cut spending and balance the budget, but they don’t use it.
Because of the risks associated with a convention such as being sought byHJR8 (and dozens of other similar resolutions currently under consideration throughout the United States), the Utah legislature in 2001 rescinded its previous call for a convention in a near unanimous vote.
A Balanced Budget Amendment had been the cause for which Utah had previously applied to Congress to call a Convention. However, Utah legislators reconsidered. In February 2001 a resolution sponsored by Utah State Representative Fred Fife (D) to rescind Utah’s former application to the U.S. Congress to call an Article V Convention was passed by both houses of Utah’s Legislature- HJR15. It passed in the Utah House 67 to 0 with 8 absent and it passed the Utah Senate without a single dissenting vote.
This year the call to such a convention is a highly organized, powerfully promoted, and extremely well-funded movement. It has been gaining support because the Obama administration has created such huge deficits.
The 1787 Convention was constituted for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, the then-existing constitution of the United States, and the definition of "revising" as noted in the charge of the 1787 Convention was "amending." The 1787 Convention set aside the existing constitution and wrote an entirely new one and changed the standard for ratification.
We were fortunate that those delegates were highly principled men who were well educated in history, human nature, law and principles of liberty. It is highly likely that among the delegates who would attend the proposed convention, if it is called, will be the same individuals who have helped create the disaster which currently faces our nation.
Soon after the Constitution was ratified, James Madison received a suggestion that the nation undertake another convention. He responded: “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.”
What is needed is for legislators to uphold their oaths of office and more citizens to get educated regarding the principles of liberty enshrined in the Constitution and become involved in influencing their representatives to apply the same.
A Balanced Budget Amendment would not necessarily require a cutback in unconstitutional spending. The budget would be balanced by allowing increasing spending and then raising taxes to cover the expenditures.
Do states really want a balanced budget when NO state could currently balance its budget without using federal funds (the very funds money most likely to be withdrawn if a Balanced Budget Amendment passes.)