The Con-Con

Jerry: Anything interesting going on in the Legislature?

Carrie: C'mon. There's always kooky stuff happening, especially in the notorious House State Affairs Committee.

Jerry: Isn't that the committee which saved us from the attack of the giant salamander and preserved our right to discriminate by refusing to "Add the Words?"

Carrie: Yes. Another bill which caught my eye is Representative Lynn Luker's "No Runaway Convention Act."

Jerry: What's that?

Carrie: His bill would allow Idaho to send delegates to a national Constitutional Convention also known as the "Con-Con."

Jerry: Is that anything like the cattlemen's conventions I used to go to where we drank and smoked and lied to each other?

Carrie: Sort of. But this one has very serious consequences. Did you know there are two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution?

Jerry: One way is for Congress to propose an amendment and for three quarters of the states to ratify it. That's how all our amendments have happened so far.

Carrie: The other way, which has never happened, is for two thirds of the states to call for a "Constitutional Convention." Nowadays, we'd need 34 states to make that possible.

Jerry: So why hasn't that ever happened?

Carrie: Because people are fearful it opens the door to all kinds of changes to the Constitution which, most agree, has served us well over the past 228 years. When our Founding Fathers held the original Constitutional Convention, they were charged with amending the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they tossed them out and created a whole new Constitution.

Jerry: I sure like their results but I don't want people meddling with our Constitution now. Why is there a push for this?

Carrie: Some folks are so frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to balance the federal budget they believe a "Con-Con" is the only way they'll get a balanced budget amendment passed. The problem, however, is that once a "Con-Con" is convened, delegates can propose any changes they wish such as removing the right to bear arms, religious freedom, etc. Interestingly, many right and left wingers each think it's a plot by the other side to seriously alter the Constitution.

Jerry: Can't they limit the "Con-Con" to one topic like the balanced budget?

Carrie: Our constitution provides no rules on how the "Con-Con" should be structured. Legal scholars argue that once the "Con-Con" meets, any proposal to change the constitution is fair game. That's why the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and current Justice Scalia have warned that a "Con-Con" could lead to utter chaos.

Jerry: Knowing how divided our country is, I can see why things could get out of hand.

Carrie: Getting back to Rep. Luker's bill, he's not requesting that Idaho join the movement for a Con-Con. In fact, Idaho originally applied for the "Con-Con" way back in 1979 but rescinded its application in 2001. His bill says that if a "Con-Con" is held, Idaho will send seven delegates who will only be allowed to vote on issues approved by the Legislature. I expect the "Con-Con" will have some kind of credentials committee to accept our delegates.

Jerry: Hopefully, it won't be run by the Idaho Republican Party given the mess they made credentialing delegates in their state convention last year. What happens if the delegates don't follow orders?

Carrie: The bill removes them as delegates. But there is no way to know if the "Con-Con" would recognize our state's authority once the delegates are accepted. How do you enforce something like that?

Jerry: Maybe we could just shoot them? Perhaps that's why the House State Affairs Committee introduced a bill last week to eliminate permits for concealed weapons!

Jerry is a retired farmer/rancher and native Idahoan. Carrie is a retired nonprofit administrator. They live in Idaho Falls.