Resolution for Article V of US Constitution convention of states
If passed, HJ5 would signal Montana's official application for a convention of states, making it part of a broader movement among several states advocating for constitutional amendments to curtail federal authority. The resolution reflects a growing sentiment among state lawmakers that the federal government has exceeded its powers and that states should take proactive measures to reclaim autonomy. This could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal governments, potentially reshaping legislative authority in various domains.
House Joint Resolution HJ5 seeks to initiate a process for amending the U.S. Constitution through a convention of states, as provided in Article V of the Constitution. The resolution calls for amendments that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and establish term limits for federal officials. Proponents argue that this measure is necessary to restore proper governance and fiscal responsibility at the federal level, addressing concerns around national debt and federal overreach.
The sentiment surrounding HJ5 is predominantly favorable among Republican lawmakers and constituents who view it as a necessary step toward greater accountability in government. They express concerns regarding federal spending and overreach, arguing that the states must act to protect their rights and liberties. Conversely, there is notable criticism from opponents, primarily Democrats and some civil rights groups, who warn that a convention of states could lead to unpredictable outcomes, including sweeping changes that could undermine civil liberties.
Notable points of contention regarding HJ5 include fears about the potential for a runaway convention, where delegates could propose amendments beyond the original intent of fiscal restraint and term limits. Critics argue that the process should be approached with caution, given the historical context of amendments and the potential for significant shifts in governance. Furthermore, critics question the necessity of such drastic measures in light of existing checks and balances within the federal system.