In a recent government meeting, concerns were raised regarding the potential risks associated with a proposed convention of states aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution. A key speaker highlighted Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, which stipulates that any amendments require unanimous consent from all 13 states. This historical precedent was invoked to caution against the current movement, which seeks to change the amendment process to require only three-quarters of the states.

The speaker expressed fears that if the convention were to proceed, there is nothing preventing a change in the rules that could lower the threshold for amendments to a simple majority. Such a shift could lead to significant constitutional changes with only 26 states in agreement, potentially igniting divisions that could escalate to secession or civil conflict.

Emphasizing a commitment to national unity, the speaker urged lawmakers to reject House Resolution 3, which supports the convention. They argued that the existing amendment process, which has successfully amended the Constitution 27 times, should remain intact to prevent any radical alterations that could arise from a convention.

The discussion also touched on the recent decision by New York state to rescind its application for the convention, reflecting concerns among states about the implications of a convention dominated by differing political ideologies. The speaker concluded by advocating for a cautious approach to constitutional amendments, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Constitution while fostering unity among states.

The meeting underscored the deep divisions within the nation and the complexities surrounding the amendment process, as lawmakers continue to navigate the balance between reform and preservation of foundational governance principles.