Kentucky House Bill HJR4

Kentucky 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/4/22
• Refer: 1/4/22

Caption

A JOINT RESOLUTION applying for an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for federal government officials and members of Congress.

Impact

The resolution, if enacted, could potentially lead to significant changes in federal-state relations. By seeking a convention of states, proponents believe it would empower local governments to reclaim authority and act as a safeguard against federal excesses. The changes proposed through such amendments could alter existing federal laws and the Constitution’s interpretation, thereby creating a more decentralized federal authority and allowing states more autonomy.

Summary

HJR4 is a joint resolution that calls for an application under Article V of the United States Constitution for a convention of the states. The primary aim of this resolution is to propose amendments that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and establish maximum terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress. This resolution reflects a growing concern among states about perceived overreach by the federal government, particularly in the areas of spending and regulation.

Sentiment

Sentiments around HJR4 are mixed, depending on political alignment. Supporters, often from conservative backgrounds, view this resolution as a necessary measure to restore balance between state and federal powers. Conversely, critics argue that the risks associated with calling a convention—including the potential for unintended consequences and broader constitutional changes—outweigh the perceived benefits of such amendments.

Contention

Several points of contention exist regarding HJR4. Opponents express concerns that allowing a convention might open the door to radical changes to the Constitution, which could jeopardize civil liberties. Furthermore, there is skepticism about the effectiveness of the proposed amendments in actually restraining the federal government, given historical instances where federal power has expanded despite constitutional provisions aimed at limiting it. The debate is emblematic of broader discussions on states' rights and the limits of federal authority.