Alabama Senate Bill SJR57

Alabama 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/2/23
• Refer: 5/2/23

Caption

RESCINDING ALL PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS OF THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE WHICH REQUEST CONGRESS TO CALL A CONVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Impact

If passed, SJR57 would effectively nullify earlier requests made by the Alabama Legislature for Congress to convene a constitutional convention to propose amendments. The intention behind this move is multifaceted; supporters argue it safeguards the integrity of the current Constitution and prevents potential changes that may arise from a renegotiation of foundational governance principles. This decision could resonate with other states that have similar concerns, thereby influencing a broader national discussion on constitutional amendments and state authority in federal governance.

Summary

SJR57, introduced in Alabama, seeks to rescind all previous resolutions by the Alabama Legislature that requested Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the United States Constitution. The bill reflects a significant shift in the Alabama Legislature's stance, expressing concerns about the risks posed by a potential convention, especially regarding the possibility of altering the Constitution in ways that may undermine fundamental rights and liberties. The resolution aims to clarify and assert the state's position against constitutional conventions, which have been deemed to present unpredictable and potentially dangerous outcomes.

Contention

The bill's implications are steeped in historical context and legislative caution. The resolution cites historical figures, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who warned about the perils of a constitutional convention. Advocates of the bill highlight concerns that a convention could lead to significant changes in governmental structure and citizens' rights, potentially establishing a new mode of governance that may not uphold the original Constitution’s values. Critics, however, may argue that rescinding such requests could close off avenues for necessary amendments to address contemporary issues, thus fostering a dynamic debate on the future direction of the constitutional framework.