United States Constitution; application for a convention of the states.
If passed, HJR3 would enable an avenue for states to convene and discuss potential amendments to the Constitution, provided that two-thirds of state legislatures express similar applications. The proposed amendments, however, would be specifically restricted to the topics outlined in the resolution, ensuring that any alterations to the Bill of Rights are not considered under this process. This move represents a significant assertion of state sovereignty and could fundamentally alter the balance of power between state and federal governments.
HJR3 is a resolution proposed by the General Assembly of Virginia, calling for a convention of states under Article V of the United States Constitution. The primary purpose of this convention is to propose amendments aimed at imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting its power and jurisdiction, and establishing term limits for federal officials and members of Congress. The resolution emphasizes the role of state legislators as guardians against overreach by the federal government and seeks to address concerns about national debt and unconstitutional federal mandates.
HJR3 highlights a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding federalism and the limits of government authority. The ability for states to call a convention could empower them to push back against perceived federal overreach, but it also opens up a pathway for significant constitutional changes. As the resolution proceeds through the legislative process, the discussions surrounding its implications will likely shape future political dialogues regarding state and federal relations.
The resolution may invoke considerable debate among legislators and constituents. Supporters argue that it is a necessary step to reclaim state authority and check the growing fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government. Conversely, critics express concern that a convention could lead to unforeseen changes beyond the intended scope and create the risk of undermining established constitutional protections. Other arguments stem from the fear of opening up the Constitution to potential amendments that may be deemed unfavorable to the rights of citizens.