A Concurrent Resolution petitioning the Congress of the United States to call a Convention for proposing amendments pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
SR112 is a concurrent resolution urging Congress to call an Article V constitutional convention limited to three subjects: imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and setting term limits for federal officials and members of Congress. The resolution frames the effort as a response to federal debt, unfunded mandates, and what it describes as federal overreach into state authority.
The resolution also attempts to define strict guardrails for any convention. It states 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 could consider only the topics named in the resolution. It further declares that no proposal affecting the Bill of Rights may be considered and that the application becomes void if used to consider changes to any Bill of Rights amendment.
SR112 lays out a detailed process for Pennsylvania’s participation if a convention is called. It would authorize the General Assembly to appoint five delegates, establish alternate delegates, set qualifications and disqualifications, require an oath, allow reimbursement of travel and per diem expenses, and permit the legislature to issue, change, or enforce instructions before and during the convention. It also provides for recall or replacement of delegates and for suspension if the legislature is not in session.
In terms of state-law impact, the resolution does not directly amend Pennsylvania statutes, but it would create a formal state position and procedural framework for Pennsylvania’s participation in a potential Article V convention. It would affect the powers and responsibilities of the General Assembly, legislative leadership, and any appointed delegates, while also expressing Pennsylvania’s recommendation that any proposed amendments be ratified by state legislatures rather than state ratifying conventions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of federal restraint and state sovereignty. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so no direct evidence of debate or opposition is available here. The main point of contention inherent in the resolution is the Article V convention process itself, including concerns about convention scope, delegate control, and whether such a convention could expand beyond the limited subjects stated in the resolution despite the bill’s attempt to prohibit that.
SR112 would not change existing Pennsylvania criminal, civil, or regulatory statutes directly, but it would establish Pennsylvania’s formal application for an Article V convention and set state procedures for selecting, instructing, recalling, and replacing delegates if such a convention is called. It also asserts Pennsylvania’s position on convention rules, voting, and ratification, and would be transmitted to federal and state officials as part of a continuing application until enough states join on the same subject.
The resolution is framed in strongly pro-limited-government and pro-state-sovereignty terms, with the sponsors presenting it as a necessary response to federal debt, mandates, and overreach. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge bipartisan support or opposition. The text itself suggests a clear ideological alignment with fiscal restraint, term limits, and skepticism of federal power.
The central controversy is whether Pennsylvania should support an Article V convention at all, given longstanding concerns that such a convention could exceed its intended scope or open the door to broader constitutional changes. The resolution tries to address that concern by imposing detailed limits on subject matter, delegate authority, and Bill of Rights protections, but critics of convention efforts typically question whether those limits would be enforceable. Another likely point of contention is the resolution’s attempt to bind Congress, control delegate selection, and prescribe one-state-one-vote procedures, which may be disputed as beyond the practical or constitutional authority of a single state resolution.