Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Convention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas Senate adopts application for Article V convention, sparking extended debate
Summary
The Kansas Senate adopted SCR 16-04, an application to Congress calling for an Article V convention limited to fiscal restraints, limits on federal power and term limits. Lawmakers debated legal risks, delegate selection and proposed amendments including a sunset provision and rescission language.
The Kansas Senate on Wednesday adopted SCR 16-04, a concurrent resolution applying to Congress for an Article V convention that would be limited to three topics: fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and limits on terms of federal officeholders.
Supporters said the move is a lawful mechanism for states to seek constitutional changes; opponents warned of legal uncertainty and the risk of a broad, unpredictable convention.
Senator Thompson, senator from Johnson and the carrier of the resolution, told colleagues the application would “consider articles of change to amend the U.S. Constitution” and said it is intended to focus on three specific topics. Thompson said, “this is just an application. It is not an amendment to the constitution. I want to make sure you’re very clear on that.”
The measure would add Kansas to an effort already taken by 19 other states, Thompson said, and — as he noted during floor debate — Article V requires 34 states to call a convention and 38 states to ratify any proposed amendments. The senator framed the resolution as a response to federal overreach and long-term fiscal trends, saying the nation faces significant debt and agency actions that have “the force and effect of law” without congressional authorization.
Opponents voiced procedural and substantive concerns. Senator Sykes urged caution, saying the Article V process “puts unelected, unaccountable delegates in charge” and questioned how delegates and rules would be selected. Senator Schallenberger, senator from Cherokee, asked how Kansas would ensure that only the stated topics would be considered; Thompson replied that the resolution limits what his supporters intend to be germane topics but acknowledged that “you could run the gamut of ideas that might be proposed.”
Several amendments offered to change the resolution failed or were ruled not germane. An amendment (No. 1638) to add a four-year sunset on the resolution was offered by Senator Shane, senator from Miami; the carrier opposed it on constitutional grounds citing a state attorney general opinion and the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. The amendment was rejected by the body. Senator Haley, senator from Wyandotte, offered a substitute amendment (No. 1640) that would have replaced the resolution’s text with language condemning certain presidential pardons; rules committee members ruled that amendment not germane and it did not proceed.
The floor exchange included both historical and legal references. Senator Murphy, senator from Reno, cited a Thomas Jefferson letter to argue for the founders’ intent that states have a remedial mechanism. Senator Sykes and others warned that a convention could be hijacked by well-funded interests and that the process has no established mechanism to bind delegates once convened.
After extended debate and multiple germaneness challenges, the Committee of the Whole recommended SCR 16-04 be adopted and the full Senate approved the report and adopted the resolution by voice vote.
The resolution now will be part of the multi-state Article V petitions sent toward Congress; it does not itself change the U.S. Constitution and would not, by itself, call a convention. Thompson said the application is intended to advance a multi-state effort to reach the threshold required under Article V.
