HCR16

I oppose HCR16, 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 HCR16: The text of HCR16 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.

New Hampshire’s system is grounded in Article 10 of our Constitution, which reserves the power of government to the people. That power includes the right to choose representatives — and just as importantly, the right to remove them through elections. Term limits weaken that principle. They replace the judgment of voters with a fixed rule that applies regardless of whether an official is doing a good job or still has the confidence of their constituents. Under Article 10, accountability flows from the people, not from automatic disqualifications written into the constitution. In practice, term limits don’t eliminate power; they redirect it. When experienced, voter-approved officials are forced out, influence shifts to unelected staff, administrators, and outside interests who are not accountable to voters and are not term-limited. New Hampshire relies on a citizen legislature and public offices that function best with experience, continuity, and institutional knowledge. Term limits shorten the learning curve and reduce the effectiveness of offices that are meant to serve the public, not the bureaucracy. If an official is no longer serving the people well, voters already have the constitutional authority to act. That authority should be protected, not restricted. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HCR 16.

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.

To: Chair Bogert and the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee From: Michael Courville, Manchester, NH Date: February 6, 2026 RE: HCR 16 – OPPOSITION To the Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee, My name is Michael Courville from Manchester, and I am writing to urge an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) recommendation for HCR 16. As a citizen, I believe this resolution is a giant waste of time and taxpayer resources. New Hampshire faces immediate, pressing challenges—including housing shortages and rising costs—that require the full attention of this legislature. Instead of addressing the needs of Granite Staters, HCR 16 asks the House to spend time debating a theoretical "Convention of States" that has never occurred in our nation's history. This is a purely ideological exercise that distracts from the real, practical work of governing. Our state resources should be directed toward solving local problems, not pursuing unpredictable and divisive constitutional experiments that have no immediate impact on the lives of our residents. Please vote ITL and focus the state’s time on matters of actual substance. Respectfully, Michael Courville

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

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 an opposition of HCR 16. Term limits would do nothing to limit the federal government or improve our representation in Congress. For example, they would throw out the best congressmen along with the worst. Furthermore, term limits ignore the most serious problems our nation faces, including fiscally-irresponsible policies and lack of adherence to the Constitution. In fact, we already have term limits — elections

We don’t need this. Oppose HCR 16

Opposing HCR 16 — Application for an Article V Convention of States Chairman, Members of the Committee, I oppose HCR 16 not because I support congressional corruption or career politicians, but because this resolution applies the most dangerous constitutional tool available to solve a problem that states already have lawful means to address. HCR 16 applies for a convention of the states under Article V for the purpose of proposing congressional term limits. The resolution assumes that such a convention can be safely limited to that single subject. The Constitution does not say that. Article V contains no language authorizing Congress or the states to control a convention’s agenda, enforce subject-matter limits, or restrain its procedures once convened. There is no constitutional template for an Article V convention of this kind. This concern is not theoretical. In 1979, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report titled Constitutional Convention Procedures (November 29, 1979), which concluded that there are no settled rules, no binding procedures, and no enforcement mechanism for controlling a convention once it is called. That report acknowledged that Congress could attempt to suggest procedures, but it could not compel compliance. The only historical precedent we have—the 1787 Convention—confirms this risk. That convention was called for a limited purpose and instead exceeded its mandate, replaced the governing framework, and altered the ratification process. Whether one views that outcome favorably or not, it establishes the central point: a convention is a constituent body, not a legislative one, and it cannot be reliably confined by prior instructions. Supporters of this resolution often argue that any problematic proposal could be stopped by the states during ratification. That argument overlooks a key structural fact. Ratification conventions are not state legislatures. Delegates are selected under state law, which can be altered quickly and influenced politically. History shows that coordinated movements can and do influence delegate selection. This creates a real vulnerability that cannot be dismissed by assurances of good intent. More importantly, this resolution misdiagnoses the problem it seeks to solve. The most serious challenges facing the states today do not arise primarily from the length of congressional service, but from the expansion of federal actions that intrude into areas the states have the lawful authority to resist. States are not powerless in this system. They retain recognized tools, including refusal to administer or enforce federal directives that exceed constitutional bounds, consistent with long-standing anti-commandeering doctrine. If Congress is acting beyond its proper role, the remedy is not to gamble with a convention that could place the entire Constitution at risk. The remedy is for states to exercise their existing authority: to refuse unlawful mandates, to decline conditional federal programs, and to reassert their constitutional role through lawful resistance and political accountability. Term limits are a policy debate. An Article V convention is a structural risk. Nothing proposed by HCR 16 requires a convention to achieve, and everything it risks cannot be undone if the process escapes control. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to find HCR 16 Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for your time and consideration

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.

CACR 28 is a radical constitutional overreach that privileges Christianity in public governance, blurs church–state separation, and rewrites the New Hampshire Constitution to solve a problem that does not exist—while real, urgent harms faced by Granite Staters of all faiths and none go unaddressed.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.