In a recent meeting of the House Government Oversight Committee, lawmakers engaged in a heated debate over House Joint Resolution 3 (HJR 3), which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Critics of the resolution voiced strong concerns about its necessity and potential dangers, arguing that it could undermine the existing constitutional framework rather than reinforce it.

One prominent opponent, who urged committee members to vote against HJR 3, questioned the logic of adding another amendment when current constitutional provisions are not being enforced. He emphasized that there are better alternatives to address the issues at hand, suggesting that changing the rules through HJR 3 could jeopardize the integrity of the Constitution itself.

Representative Gindell raised concerns about the \"one state, one vote\" principle that would govern any convention called under HJR 3, arguing that it disproportionately favors smaller states over larger ones like Ohio. This sentiment was echoed by other committee members who expressed apprehension about the potential for a convention to operate outside the control of state legislatures, particularly regarding the rules and financing of the event.

Robert Tuttle, another witness, highlighted the historical context of constitutional conventions, noting that no Article 5 convention has ever been held and that there are no established rules governing such an event. He pointed out that past conventions have deviated from their original mandates, raising fears that a new convention could lead to unintended consequences and significant changes to the Constitution without adequate oversight.

Tuttle also referenced the opinions of several legal scholars and historical figures, including James Madison and Warren Burger, who warned against the risks associated with a constitutional convention. He argued that the assumption that state legislatures would maintain control over the convention is unfounded, as Congress has historically asserted authority over the rules governing such gatherings.

As the committee continues to deliberate on HJR 3, the discussions underscore a deep divide among lawmakers regarding the potential implications of amending the Constitution through a convention, with many advocating for a cautious approach to preserve the foundational legal framework of the nation.