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.
If passed, HCR5 would effectively nullify the prior request for a convention, preventing any potential movement towards organizing such a convention that could propose sweeping amendments. The resolution emphasizes a commitment to uphold the existing constitutional framework and the rights it affords to the citizens, thereby maintaining the foundational principles on which New Hampshire and the nation stand. By rescinding the earlier call for a convention, the resolution aims to safeguard against what proponents perceive as 'imminent peril' to the well-established rights managed under the Constitution.
HCR5 is a resolution introduced in the 2025 session of the New Hampshire General Court that seeks to rescind a previous resolution (HCR40) passed in 2012, which requested Congress to call for a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution. The intent behind this bill is to counteract the perceived risks associated with calling a constitutional convention, which some legislators believe could lead to uncontrollable changes to the Constitution. The resolution expresses the view that the U.S. Constitution has proven effective over time and can be amended without the necessity of such a convention.
The sentiment around HCR5 appears to be protective and cautious. Supporters of the bill argue that maintaining the current constitutional structure is crucial, emphasizing the risks that a convention could pose, such as radical amendments that might alter the rights and responsibilities defined in the Constitution. They view this resolution as a necessary step to ensure public trust in the long-standing governance framework. However, there may be dissenting opinions, with critics possibly arguing that the bill stunts necessary debate about constitutional reform and avoids addressing issues that could be resolved through a convention.
The notable points of contention surrounding HCR5 relate to the broader debate on the efficacy of the current constitutional mechanisms versus the potential need for a convention to address perceived flaws in the Constitution. Proponents of rescinding HCR40 highlight the fear of an uncontrollable amendment process, suggesting that it could undermine rights by allowing significant changes to be proposed with minimal restrictions. Furthermore, the resolution calls for other states that had applied for a similar convention to also withdraw their applications, indicating a move to unify states against the risks of such conventions.