Overview
Title
Calling an Article V Convention for proposing a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment to the United States Constitution and stipulating ratification by a vote of We the People, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. CON. RES. 15 is about asking for a big meeting to talk about adding a rule to keep money matters in check in the Constitution. Before making any changes, they want to make sure lots of people in the country agree and vote on it.
Summary AI
H. CON. RES. 15 proposes calling a convention to discuss adding a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This resolution urges Congress to organize the convention since enough states have requested it by meeting the necessary two-thirds requirement. Furthermore, any amendments from this convention must be approved by voters in three-quarters of the states. If there isn't enough support for the convention within 60 days, Congress won't proceed.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill under consideration proposes invoking an Article V Convention to introduce a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment to the United States Constitution. The intention is to, through an assembly, discuss potential amendments to the Constitution focusing particularly on fiscal responsibilities, such as debt and budget management. The resolution also emphasizes that any proposed amendment should be ratified not by state legislatures but by a direct vote of the citizens—referred to as "We the People"—in each state.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues are inherent in this resolution. First, there is ambiguity concerning the timeline of when this constitutional convention might take place, potentially leading to indefinite delays or conflicts over interpretation. Secondly, an exception clause allows for not calling the convention if there is a report stating insufficient demand from states, yet its complexity could cause misunderstandings about whether the conditions for calling a convention are met.
Furthermore, there is a lack of procedural detail regarding the selection and duties of delegates at this proposed convention. This absence of detail could lead to inconsistent implementation across different states. Moreover, the use of a phrase from a legal case—"have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens"—lacks clarity, potentially complicating how delegates' decisions align with voters' interests.
Lastly, the bill mandates that the resolution be transmitted to the Administrator of General Services to pass it to state legislatures. The purpose or subsequent actions to be taken upon receipt by state legislatures remain unspecified, which might burden the process with additional bureaucratic layers without clear benefit.
Impact on the Public and Broad Effects
The proposed call for a Constitutional Convention stands to significantly influence public discourse and governmental operations concerning fiscal policy. If successful, such a convention could lead to amendments that fundamentally alter how fiscal responsibilities are managed at the federal level, potentially emphasizing budgetary constraints or debt controls.
For the general public, this resolution might enhance democratic involvement by placing a significant amendment process in the hands of state voters. The involvement of the electorate in ratifying amendments could empower citizens and foster a sense of ownership over constitutional changes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For state governments, especially those that have called for fiscal amendments through a convention, this resolution might serve as a tool to address long-standing fiscal concerns. It creates a pathway to discuss and potentially encode fiscal discipline into the constitutional text with direct voter input.
However, policymakers and constitutional scholars might express concern over the procedural aspects and ambiguities of this resolution. The lack of detailed guidelines and the potential for procedural inconsistencies could result in operational complexities that complicate the convention's goals.
In conclusion, while the resolution holds the potential to more directly involve citizens in significant constitutional decisions, it presents challenges related to its clarity, procedural specifications, and the anticipated roles of both delegates and administrative officials in its execution.
Issues
The call for an Article V Convention lacks a specified timeline for when the Convention should occur, leaving it open-ended and potentially leading to significant delays or interpretation disputes. (Section 1, Clause a(1))
The exception clause in Section 1, Clause a(2), is complicated and might be misinterpreted, potentially leading to confusion about whether the call for a Convention is valid or exempt. Clarification may be needed to ensure proper understanding. (Section 1, Clause a(2))
There are no detailed guidelines provided for the selection of State Convention delegates or the process by which they are expected to vote, which could lead to inconsistency and lack of uniformity in the ratification process. (Section 1, Clause b)
The phrase 'have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens' taken from Chiafalo v. Washington may be seen as ambiguous and lacks contextual clarity on its relevance in ratification by State Convention delegates. This could affect the interpretation and application of the resolution. (Section 1, Clause b)
The resolution calls for transmitting it to the Administrator of General Services for submission to state legislatures without clarifying the purpose or benefits of this action. This step might be seen as adding unnecessary bureaucratic complexity. (Section 2)
The lack of information regarding potential costs associated with Section 2's transmission to the Administrator of General Services and submission to state legislatures raises concerns about possible unnecessary expenditure without clear justification. (Section 2)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
It appears that the text provided in the section titled "TEXT" is incomplete, consisting only of the word "That" followed by a line. For a meaningful summary, a complete section from the bill is required.
1. Call for Article V Convention of States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress is calling for a Convention to propose changes to the U.S. Constitution unless a report within 60 days shows that enough states have not requested such a Convention. If the Convention takes place, any proposed amendments would need approval from three-quarters of the states, with delegates expected to stick to the wishes of their state's voters.
2. Transmission to administrator of general services Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section instructs that a copy of the concurrent resolution should be sent to the Administrator of General Services, who will then submit it to the legislatures of the various States.