Formally applies to Congress, on behalf of New Hampshire's legislature, for a convention of states under Article V to propose constitutional amendments imposing fiscal restraints, limiting federal power, and setting term limits for federal officials.
applying for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
Most submitters support HCR3, arguing that Congress has become unaccountable and that a states-led Article V convention is needed to curb federal overreach, impose congressional term limits, and enforce fiscal restraint. Opponents counter that an Article V convention risks becoming an uncontrollable 'runaway' process with undefined rules for delegate selection and ratification, made riskier by the country's current political polarization, and that the Constitution should instead simply be better enforced as written. A few submissions take a middle position, open to the idea but insisting on defined procedural safeguards first.
Supporters argue the federal government has grown too large, bureaucratic, and unaccountable, and that a Convention of States is needed to restore the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states.
“Over the years, we’ve seen an alarming trend of federal overreach, where the central government has increasingly infringed upon the rights and responsibilities that were intended to remain with the states.”
— Darlene Cartier, Derry · #376490 — read full submission →
“We certainly can see and have seen the general overreach and the growth of the federal government and the DC bureaucracy over the past couple of decades.”
— Ken Lambert, Hampton · #362533 — read full submission →
Supporters argue Congress will never impose term limits on itself, so a convention is the only realistic path to limiting how long members of Congress can serve.
Supporters argue a convention is necessary to secure a balanced budget amendment or similar fiscal restraints on federal spending, since Congress has failed to control the growing national debt on its own.
Supporters counter runaway-convention fears by noting any resulting amendment would still require ratification by 75% of states, a very high bar, and that the convention would be limited to specific enumerated subjects with delegates accountable to state legislatures.
Supporters frame the convention as a way to return power to ordinary citizens and hold the federal government more directly accountable to "We the People."
Opponents argue the Constitution itself is not the problem; the real failure is lack of enforcement of the document as written, and that this is not the time to risk rewriting it.
“Our Constitution is perfect the way it is, but our LACK OF ENFORCEMENT of our Constitution is appalling! Until we can abide by the Constitution as was created and approved by our forefathers, I oppose a ConCon!”
— Deborah Kruzel, Pelham · #383424 — read full submission →
“Rather than CHANGE the Constitution, we simply need to insist that the Constitution is more closely and consistently FOLLOWED, as is.”
— Gregory Deyermenjian, Salem · #383312 — read full submission →
Opponents argue there is no reliable way to limit the scope of an Article V convention once convened, and that delegates could propose sweeping changes well beyond the intended topics, potentially altering fundamental rights.
Opponents argue that today's highly polarized political climate would make a constitutional convention more likely to produce conflict, division, or even violence rather than constructive reform.
Opponents point out that Article V provides little guidance on how delegates would be chosen, how voting would work, or how the convention would be run, creating legal and procedural uncertainty.
Opponents note Congress has discretion to require ratification via state conventions instead of state legislatures, potentially cutting elected state legislators out of the process entirely.
One opponent cites a prior New Hampshire referendum in which voters rejected a state constitutional convention by a wide margin as evidence against pursuing this path.
One opponent argues the convention movement is associated with extremist political positions and characterizes its supporters as acting against the interests of most Americans.
These submissions do not oppose a convention outright but insist on defining the rules, funding, timeline, and budget in advance, citing concern about low public trust and an uninformed electorate.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
An Article V convention is the last gasp for States to restore some of their Constitutional authority and reign in the swarm of officers the Federal government is using to eat out our substance. I urge you to support HCR3 and take any additional steps within your authority to move us closer to an Article V convention.
I am a Selectman in Albany. Please oppose this legislation.
No Convention of the colonies or States in the history of these United States had strayed from its chartered purpose. It is time to reign in Washington DC and limit its powers to those enumerated in the Constitution.
My interpretation of the Federal requirements to call for a Constitutional Convention is: [1] The subject of the convention must be clearly stated in the call and adhered to, not expanded. AND [2] Seventy-five per cent of the states must approve of the proposal reached by the convention to adopt a Constitutional Amendment. It is very hard to imagine that that many state legislatures would agree to radical changes to our nation's Constitution.
NOOOOOOO!
This is not the time nor political atmosphere to attempt meaningful change to our constitution
A few reasons why I oppose an Article V Convention: 1, It cannot be limited to one amendment or topic. There is nothing in Article V that mentions a limited convention. 2, There are no laws or rules concerning an Article V Convention. A few states have passed ‘wayward delegate” laws, but it is the job of Congress to make the rules under Article I, Section 8-the necessary and proper clause. 3, We have no idea who the delegates will be or how they will be chosen. 4, State legislators may not have an opportunity to vote on any proposed amendments since Congress may change the mode of ratification to state ratifying conventions. 5, Will the vote at a convention be one state-one vote or based on electoral representation? If it is based on electoral representation, New Hampshire will get four votes. I can’t say that this will happen, but Article V supporters can’t say that it won’t. 6, New Hampshire voters rejected a state convention by a wide margin-66%- While state constitutional conventions are different from an Article V Convention, it does indicate a basic distrust of conventions that concern a constitution. 7, Since 2016, eight states have rescinded all of their Article V applications: 2016: Delaware (2016) 2017: Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, 2018-2019: Colorado, 2021: NJ and Illinois, 2023: Oregon Last year, the New Hampshire House voted, by a comfortable margin, to rescind its only application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. My E-mail address is shurtleffhal@aol.com and my telephone number is 857-498-1309 Respectfully, Harold S, Shurtleff 146 Powder Milll Rd. Alton, NH 03809
I am highly opposed to a Constitutional Convention. Our Constitution is perfect the way it is, but our LACK OF ENFORCEMENT of our Constitution is appalling! Until we can abide by the Constitution as was created and approved by our forefathers, I oppose a ConCon! Not to mention, in the highly inflammable society we have now... there are no clear directions on what people would be chosen to represent states at the Convention. Please VOTE NO to preserve our wonderful United States!! Thank you!
A Constitutional convention is not necessary to overhaul our state constitution. Let's concentrate on what really needs to be done. The legislature was not elected to tear apart our state government.
We must not risk making changes to our constitution until we have politics leaders on both sides of the aisle that will actually enforce the current version fairly. Opening a convention puts all of our current freedoms and rights at risk. Thank you.
As a tax paying citizen of this state and country, I appose this bill and expect my representatives to align with their constituents.
Given the destructiveness of the Trump administration, this move would open the door to the same kind of destructiveness of our Constitution. Please oppose this resolution.
I support this bill. We’ve been talking about term limits in Congress forever, it seems like. With every new Congress they promise to address this, however, they never do. I think this convention of states is a solid constitutional way to try to make some real headway in this arena. Additionally. With the Public’s loss of trust in government and politics, convention of states is a venue for the public to realize that they have a say, and a voice, in how our country is governed. Outside of elections, it’s a way for We The People to determine our collective way of living..
To whom it may concern, the only thing we as American Citizens need to do is to follow State and Federal Constitutions not change them by an article V convention. Thank you.
I don't support this bill. I think it will be against our constitution and for that reason should be stopped. Our constitution is but one of the elements that makes us Americans. In the words of Late Chief Justice Anthony Scalia "this is NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO RE-WRITE THE CONSTITUTION" . Thanks Shawn
I oppose this bill because if enacted, it would be fraught with peril, in that powerful anticonstitutional and unconstitutional forces could likely use their political and social power to take it over, and eventually achieve changes greatly for the worse. Rather than CHANGE the Constitution, we simply need to insist that the Constitution is more closely and consistently FOLLOWED, as is. Thank you.
I recommend voting against a Constitutional Convention. Given the present highly polarized state of our democracy at this point, I think a Constitutional Convention could just be a very difficult set of arguments and possibly even lead to violence. Vote against it.
NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
I am against HCR3. The text of Article V of the Constitution regarding a constitutional convention is too vague to risk the degradation and perhaps complete overturning of the protections provided to the citizens under the existing Constitution, as amended. Amongst the reasons for opposing HCR 3: • How would the convention delegates be chosen? • Congress can choose to either allow ¾ of state legislatures or ¾ of conventions of those states to ratify changes. This means that Congress has the option to prevent the elected state legislatures from deciding on whether to ratify the changes proposed by the national constitutional convention • The convention could completely rewrite the Constitution • Too many elected officials in state and federal governments have already shown disdain and contempt for the Constitution and many have openly supported the replacement of our liberal democracy with a dictatorship.
To Whom It May Concern: I am not sure exactly WHEN - or for that matter HOW - it happened, but it surely DID happen! What I am referring to is the dramatic shift in perception as to how our government is supposed to work. I was taught that our representatives in government were there to do just that: represent us. The government belongs to "we the people." At least, it's supposed to; that is what it says in the Constitution. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Somewhere along the line - in the last 50 or so years - things changed and it is now taken for granted that we have ceded our rights to public servants that they may make our decisions for us. It is encouraging therefore to see the change taking place; it gives me great hope that perhaps we will come 'round right after all, courtesy of a huge populist movement sweeping over our nation. Never before in my considerable lifetime have I seen such a broad coalition taking shape! People from all races, walks of life, and political parties, are coming together around what we share instead of what divides us. And what we share is a distrust of government and media, big tech and big pharma. We are tired of being lied to and lied about. We are beyond tired of a self-serving political class that mismanages matters large and small and leaves those of us in the middle class to shoulder the burden, often exempting themselves in the process, i.e. Obama Care. Well, "we the people" have had enough! There are broad areas of agreement around issues like common sense border and immigration reforms, a balanced budget initiative, and term limits. It is well past time for our voices to be heard. This last provides a nice segue into my reason for reaching out today. I understand that there will be a hearing tomorrow (Friday) morning on HCR3. I want to go on the record as fully supporting this bill. I further understand that this resolution has been languishing for the past several years, to no end. It would appear therefore, that, as our elected representatives, you are neither representing us nor making our decisions! You have failed in both instances as time after time this issue of applying for an Article V Convention is tabled and the can effectively kicked down the road to be grappled with at a later date. As repugnant as I find it to have to ask you for permission to simply engage in dialogue with other states regarding the feasibility of an Article V Convention, I find it even more repugnant to be dismissed and ignored time after time, year after year. if you do not want to advance this bill, please have the courage of your convictions and vote it down. Otherwise, it is long past time to listen to those you supposedly represent and bring HCR3 before the entire Body for a decision. I feel that as our elected representatives you owe us that much. Sincerely, Donna V. Gage
I urge a yed vote on this legislation to protect the rights of all citizens, to. Be albe to be i to rein in the powers, i've government that has gotten way out of control.
New Hampshire’s HCR3 seeks to call a convention of states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments imposing fiscal restraints, limiting federal power, and establishing term limits. While these goals may seem reasonable, the proposal carries significant risks. Risk of a Runaway Convention Once convened, there is no way to strictly limit the convention’s scope. Delegates could propose sweeping changes beyond the intended issues, potentially altering fundamental rights and principles of the Constitution. Lack of Clear Procedures Article V offers little guidance on how such a convention would function. Unclear rules on delegate selection, voting procedures, and amendment ratification could lead to legal disputes and prolonged political instability. Increased Political Division In today’s polarized climate, an Article V convention could deepen divisions rather than resolve issues. The process would likely fuel contentious debates, both within the convention and among the public, worsening partisanship. Better Alternatives Exist Congress already has the power to propose amendments, providing a controlled, structured process with built-in checks and balances. This ensures that constitutional changes are thoroughly vetted without the unpredictability of a convention. Additionally the power of Nullification that allows states to reject unconstitutional federal laws, preserving sovereignty and protecting citizens’ rights. It upholds the Founders’ vision of limited government and serves as a check on federal overreach. Conclusion While HCR3’s goals may seem appealing, the risks far outweigh the benefits. A convention could spiral beyond its intended purpose, leading to unintended consequences. Instead, reforms should be pursued through established legislative processes to protect constitutional stability.
I am a thirty year veteran law enforcement officer, a retired police Sergeant. I spent a significant time at the end of my career in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. The bureaucracy is monumental and the red tape to move forward is much greater than that in state/municipal law enforcement. One of the thing Article V can correct is a simplification of that bureaucracy and a more effective way of ensuring safety to the Homeland by causing LE agencies to work together more efficiently. Also the only way we will ever see a reduction of our thirty-six trillion dollar debt is a balanced budget amendment, which hasn’t yet and never will be passed. Thanks, Sgt.Duncan W. Stewart SPD #7244 ???????????????
HCR3 is important for the following reasons: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. The Convention of States Action resolution allows the states to discuss amendment proposals that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, and place term limits on federal officials.” This is truly a solution as big as the problem.” I want my voice not only heard, I want my constitutional rights protected, enhanced and enforced for my freedom and those of the Citizens of New Hampshire and the Republic of the United States. Thank you, Sandra Davis
This is going to be one of the most important pieces of business you will deal with this year. The FUTURE of the United States of America as we know it depends on this bill. Remember LIVE FREE OR DIE.! Rutherford P. Banes