Applies to Congress for a Convention of the States
HJR2 is a joint resolution by the Ohio General Assembly applying to Congress for an Article V Convention of the States. The proposed convention would be limited to considering constitutional amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and impose term limits on federal officials and members of Congress. The resolution frames the effort as a response to federal debt, federal overreach, and unfunded mandates, and it states that the application remains in effect until enough other states submit similar applications on the same subject.
The resolution also sets out Ohio’s preferred rules and limitations for any convention. It declares that Congress would have only a ministerial role in calling the convention, that states would control delegate selection, that each state would have one vote, and that the convention would be confined to the specified topics. It further states that no proposal altering the Bill of Rights would be authorized for consideration. The resolution directs the House clerk to send copies to federal officials and to the legislatures of the other states.
In practical legal terms, HJR2 does not directly amend Ohio statutes or create new state regulatory requirements. Instead, it is an interstate application under Article V of the U.S. Constitution seeking to trigger a constitutional convention process at the federal level. If enough states adopted substantially similar applications, it could contribute to a convention aimed at proposing federal constitutional amendments, though any amendments would still require ratification under Article V.
The general sentiment reflected in the text is strongly supportive of limiting federal power and restoring state authority. The resolution’s findings emphasize concern about national debt, constitutional interpretation, and federal mandates, suggesting a pro-state-sovereignty and anti-federal-expansion posture. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no additional evidence of debate, amendments, or recorded opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention likely center on the use of an Article V convention itself, the risk of a convention exceeding its stated scope, and the resolution’s attempt to restrict Congress’s and the convention’s authority. Supporters would likely favor fiscal restraint, term limits, and federalism, while critics may worry about constitutional uncertainty, the possibility of broader amendments, and the enforceability of the resolution’s limitations. The explicit exclusion of any amendment affecting the Bill of Rights is also a notable safeguard that may reflect concern about unintended consequences.
HJR2 would not change Ohio statutory law directly, but it would formally commit Ohio to an Article V application seeking a Convention of the States on limited subjects. Its legal effect is to add Ohio to the pool of states requesting a federal constitutional convention focused on fiscal restraints, federal power limits, and term limits, while also asserting Ohio’s preferred procedural constraints on delegate selection, voting, and subject matter. The resolution could influence interstate efforts to reach the two-thirds threshold needed to call such a convention.
The bill’s tone is strongly supportive and reform-oriented, with clear skepticism toward the federal government. The findings and operative language reflect a belief that federal spending, mandates, and jurisdiction have grown beyond constitutional limits, and the resolution presents the convention as a corrective measure. Because no committee testimony or vote history is included, the available record shows only the bill’s affirmative framing and not any documented opposition or bipartisan support.
Likely areas of contention include whether a Convention of the States is a safe or appropriate mechanism for constitutional reform, whether the proposed limits on the convention would be legally enforceable, and whether Congress or the states would control convention procedures. Supporters are likely those favoring fiscal restraint, term limits, and reduced federal authority; opponents are likely to raise concerns about constitutional risk, lack of precedent, and the possibility that a convention could exceed the resolution’s narrow scope. The explicit prohibition on considering changes to the Bill of Rights also suggests concern about broader constitutional revision.