Rescinds all previous applications for Article V conventions made by the Missouri legislature to Congress
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 13 is a Missouri resolution that seeks to withdraw, cancel, and render void all prior applications and resolutions previously adopted by the Missouri General Assembly asking Congress to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The resolution is based on concerns that convention calls have often been framed around a single subject, such as a balanced budget amendment, but that there is legal uncertainty about whether a convention could be limited to that one issue.
The resolution states that an Article V convention could have the power to propose any changes it sees fit, and that this could lead to constitutional changes viewed as harmful to U.S. citizens. It therefore directs that Missouri’s prior convention applications be rescinded and asks that the resolution be entered into the Congressional Record and reflected in the official tally of state legislative applications. It also instructs the House Chief Clerk to send copies to congressional leaders and Missouri’s congressional delegation.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would not change Missouri statutes, but it would change the state’s formal position on Article V convention calls by revoking all earlier legislative applications for a constitutional convention. Its practical effect would be to signal that Missouri no longer supports any pending or prior request for Congress to convene such a convention, and to attempt to remove those applications from the official count used in evaluating whether the constitutional threshold has been met.
Sentiment
The available text suggests a strongly cautionary and skeptical sentiment toward Article V conventions. The resolution’s sponsors frame the measure as a protective step against the risk of an open-ended convention that could exceed a single issue and produce unwanted constitutional changes. No committee debate or recorded votes are provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or amendment activity, only the resolution’s clear anti-convention posture.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether a state-called Article V convention can be legally limited to a single subject or whether it could propose broader constitutional changes. Supporters of the resolution appear to believe the risk of an unrestricted convention is too great and that prior Missouri applications should be withdrawn entirely. Potential opponents would likely favor keeping convention applications in place as a tool for constitutional reform, but no direct opposition is documented in the provided materials.