Sponsors ask Ohio panel to support Article V convention for balanced budget, limits on federal power and term limits

Representative MacLean and Representative Willis told the House Government Oversight Committee on Oct. 12 that House Joint Resolution 2 would ask Congress to call an Article V convention limited to three subjects: imposing fiscal restraints including a balanced budget amendment, limiting federal power and jurisdiction, and establishing term limits for federal officials.

The resolution, Representative MacLean said in sponsor testimony, “issues a call for a convention of states under Article 5 of the US Constitution to propose amendments regarding limited subjects.” He said the measure aims to use the states’ Article V authority if Congress does not act on those issues.

The matter matters because an Article V convention requires two-thirds of states — 34 — to call for a convention and three-fourths — 38 — to ratify any proposed amendment, a high bar that MacLean and Willis cited repeatedly. “It is time to force Congress to act in this regard,” MacLean said, noting the federal debt he cited as about $36,000,000,000,000 and arguing that fiscal restraint and limits on federal jurisdiction are needed.

Committee members pressed sponsors on legal limits for such a convention and on substantive protections for federal programs. Representative Gross asked whether delegates at a convention could change the subjects after convening; MacLean said the convention would be called “on specific subject matter terms” and that objections could be raised if delegates moved outside those bounds. MacLean acknowledged, however, that “there is a legal debate on Article 5” and that the committee should hear constitutional scholars on both sides.

Representative Rader and others asked why the sponsors would pursue an Article V convention rather than asking Congress to propose amendments directly under the other path in Article V, which has produced amendments in the past. Willis and MacLean responded that proponents see the resolution as a means to pressure federal action or to proceed if Congress refuses, and said mock conventions and legal review have been used in planning.

Members also raised substantive concerns about possible effects on entitlements and emergency powers. Representative Keene and Representative Troy cautioned about protecting Social Security and Medicare and about emergency exceptions such as war powers; sponsors pointed to the ratification threshold as a safeguard and said emergency exceptions could be addressed in any amendment language adopted by states.

Sponsors told the committee they will supply legal analysis and lists of prior state convention calls; they said roughly 19 states had issued similar subject-matter calls and that the resolution would make Ohio the twentieth in that group if passed. No formal vote or committee action was taken at the hearing; members asked for additional expert testimony and information before further consideration.

The committee took testimony and asked sponsors to provide legal precedent and additional written materials; the hearing closed without a vote on HJR 2.