RTFA: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_…
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
WHEREAS, With each passing year, this nation becomes more deeply in debt as its expenditures exceed available revenues; and
WHEREAS, Fiscal prudence requires that certain steps be taken to control the growth of the budget and eliminate excessive deficits; and
WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution requires the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention upon the application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, hereby applies to the Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing to the states for ratification, an amendment to the United States Constitution containing the following provisions:
First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war.
Second, the amendment shall grant the President the authority to disapprove any item or items in any bill presented by the Congress to the President in addition to the President’s authority to disapprove entire bills pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.
Third, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt budgets for all federal programs and agencies on a biennial rather than annual basis; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application for a constitutional convention or the Congress has proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution equivalent to the amendment proposed in this resolution; and be it further
RESOLVED, That, if the convention called by the Congress is not limited in subject to the amendment proposed in this resolution, any delegates, representatives, or participants from the State of Ohio asked to participate in the convention are permitted to debate and vote only on the proposed amendment contained within this resolution or an equivalent amendment; and be it further
RESOLVED, That if two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a constitutional convention, the State of Ohio requests that such a convention be called not later than six months after the Congress receives the thirty-fourth application from a state legislature; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore and Secretary of the United States Senate, the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the presiding officer of each house of each state legislature in the United States, and the news media of Ohio.
This was introduced to the 127th General Assembly of Ohio on December 3, 2008, at least in the Ohio House (not sure about the Senate). The full text is House Joint Resolution 8 and Senate Joint Resolution 9.
It does appear that the Ohio legislature is aware of the potential danger that a Constitutional Convention could be called for purposes other than proposing a balanced budget amendment, and I take a little comfort in that knowledge. However, that says nothing for the 49 other states, who might have different agendas.
The specific concern about a Constitutional Convention is that there’s a lot of debate over the process, itself. It’s not clear who would be the delegates, and it’s not clear what the scope of the convention would be. Calling a convention would potentially begin the process of rewriting the entire US Constitution, or it could simply result in the proposal of a single new amendment; that’s the scope issue, and that’s why conservatives are pretty concerned about this movement.
From Wikipedia for Conventions to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution:
Constitutional scholars are divided as to how a national, amendment-proposing convention would function procedurally, and whether such a convention would be limited to the one subject for which it was summoned or whether delegates could expand the agenda as they might see fit.[13] Opponents of a convention assert “There is no consensus as to whether or not the convention would have the power to simply disavow the Constitution altogether and propose replacing it with an entirely new document, and that it is worth noting that such an outcome would be similar to what happened when the Convention of 1787 ended up writing the current Constitution. That convention was called for the purpose of revising the earlier Articles of Confederation, but it chose instead to abandon the articles in favor of a completely new document.” However, these opponents fail to note that the 1787 convention was authorized by the Articles of Confederation, by an act of Congress, and by votes of the states; and that under this Act of Congress, any action taken by the 1787 Convention was invalid unless ratified by both a vote of Congress and the states.[14] As then, so now: Anything that emerges from an Article V convention is merely a proposal, without any force or effect until ratified by the states. Under Article V three-fourths of the states (presently 38 of 50) is the minimum necessary to ratify.
By citing the Constitution’s necessary-and-proper clause, Congress might enact a statute to clearly define many of the currently ambiguous and debatable features of this convention procedure. Sponsored by the late Senator Sam Ervin, such a bill passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 1971 and again in 1973, but the proposed legislation remained locked-up in a House committee where it died.
However, neither Article I nor Article V of the Constitution grants Congress this power, and the Founders intended Congress “have no option.” Therefore, it appears that meddling by Congress could constitute usurpation, in that the legislative branch could exert control over the convention, thus virtually taking the two methods of amendment under Article V and combining them into one.
…continuing…
Congress is required to call a convention after the submission of applications by two-thirds of the states (currently 34 of 50), but it is – and always has been – the U.S. Congress that counts the applications. Indeed Congress has, according to the National Archives, never officially totaled the applications.[16] Since 1899 the strongest Convention movements – i.e. those which secured more than a dozen state applications – were: reapportionment (33); balanced budget (32); direct election of US Senators (31); limitation of US taxing power (39); prohibition of polygamy (27); limited taxation (24); revenue sharing (18); pro-life(16); and revision of Article V (13).[17]
Some statistics relevant to state applications for a general convention under Article V are as follows: States have submitted a sum total of 22 applications for a “general revision” during the time frame, 1788-1929 – but with only one, Wisconsin’s, submitted since the Progressive Era (pre-World War I). There have been no applications for a “general revision” between 1929 and the present.
If anyone knows the particulars of using Ohio’s online legislature database, please let me know where to find the schedule for consideration of these joint resolutions.
I think the subtext to all of this reads: does the United States stand at a crossroads; is this the moment where we contemplate a revolutionary shift in the definition of the American Experiment; will the Bill of Rights remain intact; whose interests will be represented, and who among us will profit most from calling a new Constitutional Convention?
