HCR13

There is no need to single out the Muslim community. Extremists exists in every group that can identify as a group. Passing this Bill will hurt our Muslim brothers and sisters more than help our community by singling out Islam as evil. Sharia Law, or The path to be followed, is a religious belief. Like many religious beliefs they become antiquated. The US laws already protect everyone from commiting crimes. We don't need to set out sights on Muslims as a target.

I oppose HCR13, which would have NH apply to Congress for the calling of a convention, under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, to propose a constitutional convention relative to implementing term limits for elected members of both houses of Congress. The following are some of my reasons for opposing HCR13: The text of HCR13 appears to limit the scope of the convention to an amendment to the Constitution that would “set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States Senate.” But, in fact, Article V of the Constitution does not stipulate that a convention be limited to considering one amendment or subject. This would put at risk the civil liberties and states’ rights now enshrined in the constitution for all Americans. In addition, Article V does not offer rules on how a convention would be convened or conducted, such as how the delegates to the convention would be chosen, how votes would be counted, or how amendments would be ratified. There are too many unknowns and the stakes are too high to rely on this method to propose amendments to the Constitution, especially when a tested method (the way all 27 current amendments were added to the Constitution) is available under Article V.

I oppose both HCR 13 and HCR 16. While most citizens support adding term limits for Congress and Senate to the Constitution, Invoking article V for a Congressional Convention does not limit the scope of Amendments that can be introduced, removed or altered. Given the magnitude of partisan divide and conflict within both houses of Congress at this time, a convention would likely cause further chaos in our country that is already strongly divided by political ideology

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am unable to attend tomorrow's hearing. As I have stated a number of times at these hearings concerning an Article V Convention, such a convention cannot be limited to a single issue no matter what out of state lobbyists tell the committee. Article V makes no mention of conventions based on single issues. There are currently no laws governing an Article V Convention. We have no idea how the delegates will be chosen nor to we know who these delegates will be. Pro-Article V lobbyists tell committee members that a 3/4ths vote is needed by state legislatures to pass any proposed amendments, but the mode of ratification can be changed by delegates at a convention to state ratifying committees. Term limits is an amendment for the political lazy. It will do nothing to solve the problems of incumbency. And even if it did, it would take 15-20 years to have an impact. Nine states have rescinded their Article V resolutions including NY, MA, NJ, CA and Il.

I understand the frustration that leads people to support term limits. When government feels unresponsive, the instinct is to rotate people out faster. But in New Hampshire, term limits would actually weaken the very system that’s meant to keep power closest to the people. Our legislature is made up of citizen lawmakers who serve part-time, earn very little, and rely heavily on experience to navigate complex policy. Term limits would remove that experience just as members become effective, shifting real influence away from elected representatives and toward unelected staff, lobbyists, and outside interests who are not term-limited. Voters already have term limits — they’re called elections. If a representative isn’t doing a good job, the people can and do remove them. That’s accountability that’s direct and flexible, not one-size-fits-all. I’m also concerned about unintended consequences. Term limits sound simple, but in practice they reduce institutional memory, make committees less effective, and discourage people from investing the time it takes to truly understand complicated issues like budgets, education, and municipal law. New Hampshire’s system works best when it trusts voters and values experience. We don’t need to fix what isn’t broken. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HCR 13.

I'm strongly opposed to calling a constitutional convention relative to implementing term limits for elected members of both houses of Congress. There is too much turmoil in both houses of Congress to think this is a good time for such a measure.

This is no time to start re-writing our constitution from scratch!

Who knows what such a convention might do in these polarized times! Too dangerous to risk.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

We already have term limits! It's called the Ballot Box. This amendment can have long-lasting and dangerous implications

Everyone knows full well that this open Panroda's Box of evil changes to the Constitution. Even now few legislators know what the Constitution says much less means. Until we enter an enlightened era of educated people, it is more than dangerous to open our very essence as a people to morons who plan on turning the control knobs to find out what they do. Like using a time machine, going back and tinkering with it can have massive unintended consequences. Proponents say it is safe ... IT IS NOT.

I write in opposition of any Article V convention, no matter how well intentioned, could lead to a runaway convention that would reverse many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference. In other words, a Con-Con could accomplish the same goals that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against. As evidence, both a 2016 and 2023 simulated “Convention of States” resulted in amendments massively increasing the federal government and expanding its spending powers.

We don’t need this. Oppose HCR 13

Chairman, Members of the Committee, I oppose HCR 13 not because I support career politicians, but because an Article V convention is a dangerous and unnecessary tool to address that problem. This resolution assumes that a convention can be safely limited to a single issue — congressional term limits. The Constitution does not say that. Article V provides no mechanism for enforcing subject-matter limits once a convention is called. There is no controlling authority, no binding rules, and no enforcement power retained by either Congress or the states. There exist no blueprint to an article V convention or template This is not theory. The only precedent we have — the 1787 Convention — was called for the limited purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and instead replaced the entire governing framework. James Madison acknowledged this outcome and simultaneously warned in Federalist Nos. 40 and 49 about the dangers of uncontrolled constituent assemblies. Those warnings are directly applicable here. Supporters often argue that the states can stop anything radical during ratification. That argument misunderstands the process. Ratification conventions are not state legislatures. Delegates are selected under state law, which can be changed quickly and influenced politically. Delegate capture is a real structural vulnerability, not a theory. Even assuming good intentions, the risk is asymmetric. If a convention remains limited, nothing is achieved that could not be accomplished through safer means. If it does not remain limited, the consequences are irreversible. Term limits are a policy question. An Article V convention is a structural gamble with the Constitution itself. If Congress is failing, the solution is not to bypass constitutional safeguards by convening an uncontrolled convention, but to use the tools already available — elections, state pressure, and amendments proposed through Congress. States also have the power of Nullification For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to find HCR 13 Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you.

The concept of a Convention of States is being pushed in state legislatures all over the country by a well-funded effort backed by the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, and it is a component of enacting their radical agenda and Project 2025. Even if the Trump-controlled Republicans in Washington wouldn't control a Convention (which they will), I would still oppose a Convention of States on principal. Even the founding fathers regretted including a Convention of States option for amendments in the US Constitution. As with the only other Convention of States (when delegates were sent to Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation and they threw it out the window) there would be no limit on what could be amended. The process could be conducted in private, with no input from citizens or elected officials. I've commented on this to the legislature before: This bill is nothing more than an effort to take Constitutional rights away from Americans. I have reviewed the reasons given by supporters. It is purposely vague and patriotic sounding. The one reasonable-sounding motivation is fiscal responsibility, but a law requiring a balanced budget given the current state of our country would be an economic disaster; our deficit is exploding under Trump. And given the vagueness of the rules of a Convention and the current political situation in our country (where there is no respect for law, including Constitutional law, but many elected officials) I have absolutely no faith in the integrity of a Constitutional Convention to achieve anything beneficial for NH or other American citizens. That the Convention is supported by people in favor of Christian Nationalism, capital punishment for homosexuals, book bans, abortion bans, etc. is even more alarming. These people are traitors. This is a power grab by a minority that wants to oppress the majority of Americans. To support it would be unpatriotic and immoral.

I oppose this bill, because given how dangerously divided the country is at this time, a constitutional convention would be fraught with tension and stress, and possibly even result in a worse situation in the country.

Please ITL HCR 13. Reducing corporate $$$, lobbyists etc in politics will make politicians more responsive to the people - not term limits. It takes real time to become a skillful member of Congress - to mandate arbitrary term limits means we will have unskilled people in office, more easily manipulated by monied special interests.