New Hampshire House Bill HCR9

New Hampshire 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/28/23
• Refer: 11/28/23
• Report DNP: 2/12/24
• Report Pass: 2/12/24

Caption

Rescinding House Concurrent Resolution No. 40 passed by the 2012 New Hampshire General Court asking that Congress call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.

Impact

By rescinding the 2012 application for a constitutional convention, HCR 9 effectively halts any efforts that might have sought to initiate significant amendments to the Constitution through local conventions. Proponents of the resolution argue that the existing constitutional amendment process is sufficient and does not require any new conventions. This decision stems from an intention to maintain the historical integrity of the Constitution as a sound governing document that has adequately protected the rights of citizens throughout U.S. history.

Summary

House Concurrent Resolution 9 (HCR 9) is a legislative resolution introduced in by the New Hampshire General Court in 2024. The primary purpose of HCR 9 is to rescind a previous application made in 2012 via House Concurrent Resolution 40, which sought congressional approval to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution under Article V. The current resolution aims to address concerns regarding the potential risks associated with such a convention and the uncertainties it could create for the established rights and governance in the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HCR 9 is largely protective of state governance and constitutional integrity. Supporters view the measure as a safeguard against irreversible changes to the Constitution that could emerge from a convention. They express concerns about involving state legislatures in active applications for a convention based on perceived threats to the established rights guaranteed under the Constitution. This has fostered a robust debate among legislators regarding the merits and dangers of relying on constitutional conventions for amendments.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the debate over whether such conventions are necessary or could pose a risk of undermining the constitutional framework. The original application for an Article V convention was based on the belief that significant amendments were required to adapt to contemporary issues. Conversely, opponents of HCR 40 affirm the position that existing amendment pathways are adequate and that a convention could lead to unpredictable outcomes detrimental to governance and citizens' rights. HCR 9 invites other states that might have applied to Congress to withdraw their applications, further emphasizing resistance to the convention approach for constitutional change.