Idaho considers an amendments convention

One reason the federal government has become so dysfunctional—it can’t even balance its own budget—is that a key “check and balance” in the Constitution remains unused. This is the right of the people, through their state legislatures, to propose and adopt corrective constitutional amendments.

Our Founders considered this right to be highly important—possibly even more important than the President’s veto. If it had not been in the Constitution, the American people likely would have rejected the document entirely.

The Idaho Senate is considering a resolution to join with other states in using the procedure to require Congress to balance the federal budget. The Idaho House already has approved this resolution. It is well worth the debate.

The Constitution’s procedure is as follows: First, state legislatures send “applications” to Congress. These are resolutions directing Congress to call what the Constitution labels a “convention for proposing amendments”—a meeting of representatives from state legislatures to consider constitutional amendments on designated topics. Once two-thirds of the states (34) pass matching resolutions, Congress issues a “call” specifying time, place, and subject matter.

Each state legislature then picks a delegation to meet at the appointed time and place. At the convention, each state delegation has one vote. A majority of the delegations present and voting may propose an amendment within the scope of the “call.” But the proposal does not become part of the Constitution unless three-fourths of the states (38) vote to ratify.

The vote in the Idaho House was 36-34 to advance the proposal. Perhaps some are happy with the federal government as it is. But others were persuaded by objections that have been bandied about for nearly 60 years—even though all of them were rebutted long ago.

Let’s go through the chief objections:

Objection #1: “Congress would control the process, leaving states at its mercy for the rules and who the delegates are.”

Answer: This is inaccurate. The Founders designed this procedure specifically to bypass Congress. The convention is under the control of the state legislatures, not of Congress. If Congress tried to intervene, the courts would step in, or the sponsoring states could pull the plug.

Objection #2: “The convention could not be controlled. It could recommend wholesale changes to the Constitution.”

Answer: This is called the “runaway” objection. Notice that it directly contradicts the first objection, which was that Congress would control the convention.

The “runaway” objection was first promoted widely in the 1960s and 1970s by influential liberal figures who wanted to frighten away the states from using this procedure. However, today, no serious expert takes this objection seriously. All recent credentialed scholarship acknowledges that the convention is limited to the agenda defined by the sponsoring states. Any action outside that agenda would be void.

Objection #3: “The Constitutional Convention of 1787 is an example of a convention that exceeded its power. It was called by Congress only to recommend amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but it recommended an entirely new constitution.”

Answer: This also is inaccurate. Virginia, not Congress, called the Constitutional Convention, and Virginia called it to consider any and all changes in the political system.

This objection also disregards the fact that none of the other 40+ “conventions of states” in U.S. history has “run away.” If it had, its actions would have been legally void.

Moreover, in modern conditions, a “runaway” convention is not even remotely possible. This is because convention proceedings would be open to the public and state officials could immediately recall any delegate who tried to get off script.

Objection #4: “The 38-state ratification requirement isn’t a real protection since the convention could just propose a new ratification process.”

Answer: This objection contradicts centuries of judicial precedent, from the Supreme Court on down. The courts uniformly hold that all participants in the amendment process—Congress, the state legislatures, and conventions—must follow the rules laid out in the Constitution. A federal court reaffirmed this only a few weeks ago.

Objection #5: “Big money is driving this effort.”

Answer: The only big money involved in this controversy is spent by groups that oppose a convention. Several of those groups are funded in part by socialist billionaire George Soros.

Objection #6: “Amendments won’t make any difference anyway.”

Answer: No one familiar with American history can believe this. Constitutional amendments have an enormous influence on American life. Think of the Bill of Rights, the 19^th Amendment guaranteeing the vote for women, and the 22^nd Amendment limiting the President to two terms.

Bottom line: Our Founders gave us a precious constitutional right to correct the federal government when it has gone off the rails. It is our privilege and obligation to use it, and Idaho has the opportunity to join the majority of other states that have voted to do so.