LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska on Friday became the 17th state to call for a convention of states to consider making changes to the U.S. Constitution, putting supporters halfway to their goal of getting the 34 states needed to trigger a convention.
Nebraska lawmakers gave the measure final approval with a 32-10 vote, just three days after Wisconsin passed a similar proposal.
The 17 states that have passed them so far are generally Republican-led and heavily concentrated in the South. In eight other states, the measure has advanced through at least one legislative chamber. The Convention of States movement has ties to the tea party movement and is endorsed by many prominent conservatives.
Opponents have raised concerns about a runaway convention that could lead to in drastic changes to the nation’s founding document and the freedoms it protects.
The measure’s sponsor, state Sen. Steve Halloran, said he pushed for it out of concern for the growing national debt under presidents from both parties. He said he has heard strong support from constituents in his central Nebraska district and around the state.
“Functionally, the founding fathers intended for the states to have equal footing with Congress,” said Halloran, of Hastings. “To me, that’s important. I think it’s a state sovereignty issue.”
Like the other states’ resolutions, Nebraska’s call seeks to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the federal government’s power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on Congress. The Nebraska measure passed after supporters agreed to add a 5-year sunset, letting the measure expire in February 2027.
Backers also had to come up with 33 votes to overcome a legislative filibuster from opponents. Because the measure is a resolution and not a bill, it doesn’t require approval from Gov. Pete Ricketts, although the Republican governor has voiced support for it in the past.
Some lawmakers argued that the convention would widen the nation’s political divisions and could ultimately backfire on Nebraska, leading to changes that hurt the state.
“How will they balance the budget? Will they go after farm programs first?” asked Sen. Steve Lathrop, of Omaha.
Sen. Megan Hunt, of Omaha, said she was concerned that special interest groups would try to influence the process, and argued that lawmakers should focus more on protecting voting rights.
“We have a good democracy if we can keep it, if we can protect it,” she said.
Follow Grant Schulte on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GrantSchulte
Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
“Opponents have raised concerns about a runaway convention that could lead to in drastic changes to the nation’s founding document and the freedoms it protects.”
And this would be my concern. When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, it was truly a work of genius. It has stood the test of time and it is truly unique to anything upon which any other country on Earth is founded. At the time, they felt that their vision for America would pass from one generation to the next and that it would be as revered and protected as they originally intended. Today, I am sure they would tweak certain things and address issues that had not arisen back then.
Even in light of issues that need to be addressed, it is something that must be done very carefully. The founding fathers were a unique, gifted, and special group of men—I don’t know that there is an equivalent to them today, therefore, I am leery of entrusting any changes being made to any group that exists today. This needs to be thought out very carefully.
True, but i would rather Take the risk, to DO a convention of states (as long as we republicans get to do MOST of what we have been pushing for), than NOT take it, and leave things as is….
We do not have a democracy we have a a reign of terror who think they have fooled Americans into believing we are still a democracy. These people were “for the most part” elected to represent us not to order us to bow down to their tyrannical rules. And pay them handsomely in the process. It is way past time to clean house!
Hmm – here in Pennsylvania, this push for a convention of states is not even on the radar. I wonder why?
BECAUSE that state is commucrat controlled, from the top down.
Don’t think the Convention of States would be very smart to set in motion. Very bad idea. Just look at how some people are interpreting our Constitution today. Twist the words and meanings as much as they can. Just shameful.
So you’d just leave things as is??
First and foremost, before you call for a revision to the Constitution, it must be specified what part(s) of the Constitution need to be revised and (more important) why. Running around talking about a ‘convention of states’ without specifying what is to be changed and more important, why is like playing “Russian roulette” with live ammo. Look no further than how easily the 2020 election was corrupted and stolen. Get this. We are not a democracy, we have a Constitutional republic. In a true democracy, it is the straight majority rules. Potential states knew they could easily be overruled by states with more dense populations (kalifornia). To protect themselves from being ‘steam rolled’, the electoral college was devised. States only agreed to join if they had some guarantee that their votes would be counted. This is not some old outdated voting system, it is as valid today as it was at its conception. Perhaps more today. Before we get too carried away with a ‘convention of states’ what and why need to be established.
While i agree, i would STILL LIKE one, just to impose term limits on EVERY FEDERAL POSITION!