Minnesota Senate Bill SF2617

Minnesota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/23
• Refer: 3/6/23

Caption

A resolution memorializing Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution to impose fiscal constraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress

Impact

The implications of SF2617 are significant as it presents an opportunity for states to reclaim authority over federal actions perceived to exceed constitutional bounds. By advocating for amendments that restrain federal power and address concerns like national debt and unfunded mandates, this bill reflects a growing sentiment among certain state legislators about the need for increased state autonomy and fiscal responsibility. Should such amendments be proposed and ratified, they could fundamentally alter the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Summary

SF2617 is a resolution from Minnesota that seeks to memorialize Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The key objectives outlined in the bill include imposing fiscal constraints on the federal government, limiting its power and jurisdiction, and establishing term limits for federal officials and members of Congress. This resolution is consistent with Article V of the Constitution, which permits states to apply for such conventions to address significant governmental concerns.

Contention

There are notable points of contention surrounding SF2617, particularly regarding the feasibility and implications of convening a constitutional convention. Critics argue that opening the Constitution to amendments poses risks of unintended consequences, such as the potential for broader changes that might not align with the original intentions of the framers. Proponents contend that the current fiscal state of the federal government necessitates such drastic action, asserting that maintaining the status quo is detrimental to future generations.

Discussion

Support for SF2617 has emerged primarily from legislators who prioritize fiscal conservatism and state sovereignty, while opposition largely stems from those concerned about the implications of a constitutional convention and the risks it entails. The debate has sparked broader discussions regarding the role of federal government in state affairs and the effectiveness of existing checks on federal spending and power.