MY TURN: Clearing up convention confusion

Dear Citizens of Idaho,

Don’t be CONNED by the Con-Con op-ed in the Feb. 28 Coeur d'Alene Press. The authors profess their “fierce devotion to the American Constitution.” They further declare “The Constitution is under serious threat from well-meaning people who seek a Constitutional Convention.” 

Why they are confusing a Constitutional Convention vs. Convention of States is a puzzle to me. Sen. Todd Lakey (the chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Rules) presented SCR112 to the Senate Judiciary Committee that passed the Resolution to the Senate floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

In his presentation, he spoke how the opponents of the Resolution state SCOTUS Scalia stated he was opposed to a “Constitutional Convention” which is a fact. He in a later recorded statement said he would be for an “Article V Convention of States”! 

The opponents like to label this a “con-con” which SCR112 is absolutely not. Please read the actual SCR112 passed out of committee. I would agree the Constitution continues to be under attack; however, it’s not from the above well-meaning people alluded to, but rather the progressive leftists who continue to advance the Unconstitutional Administrative Branch of Government (the Deep State). These people have done unmeasurable damage to our beloved America. Just examine the following:

1) The growing authoritarianism of an out-of-control politicized federal court (attacks on First, Second and 10th Amendment, as well as the entire Constitution).

2) The departure from Equal Justice Under the Law.

3) The social engineering and central planning from the Unconstitutional Administrative Branch of Government who fund pet projects that make no sense. They continue to pick winners and losers with prohibited unconstitutional spending.

4) Promotion of education system where the purpose is to indoctrinate and manipulate rather than teach the three essentials: Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.

5) Out-of-control fiscal policy and profligate spending.

6) Continual erosion of state authority under the Founders 10th Amendment.

The authors of the article correctly laid out the process for the Congress of the United States to alter or amend the Constitution, but very much misrepresented the states’ avenue for amending the Constitution provided for an Article V. Much of the balance of their article is filled with misinformation or disinformation. For example, they maintain as follows:

1) “A Con-Con opens up the whole Constitution to be re-written as the delegates decide”

2) “Alterations could not be reliably limited to a particular known proposal; delegates could concoct changes on the fly to anything and everything”

3) “There are no set rules determining how the delegates holding such staggering power would be chosen. We would be counting on a dysfunctional Congress to set the rules.”

4) They further say “There is no basis to believe the agenda can be safely controlled. Once a Convention is called everything is on the chopping block. The Constitutional protection of our rights — free speech, gun rights, a jury of our peers — all could be restricted or even eliminated by unelected delegates.”

I don’t know where they are getting their information as none of it is true. We are asking the Legislature to approve a very specific agenda. SCR112 would limit any change to the items in SCR112. There is no chance for delegates to “concoct changes on the fly.” 

Delegates are determined by the Idaho State Legislature and sign a Faithful Delegate Document that they shall not exceed the scope of his or her authority when acting as a commissioner or interim commissioner. A commissioner or interim commissioner who exceeds the scope of his or her authority shall be guilty of a felony. 

The states previously approving Article V SCR112 have provided a good model and your leaders are very capable of making any minor changes. The Congress has nothing to do with Article V, which is a good thing! It is a fact that weak Congresses and, in some cases, politicized courts have had a devastating effect on the Constitution. It is no wonder the Congress has a 9% approval rating. I wonder what the 9% are thinking? Hence the past due need for Article V Convention of States SCR112.

Due to the Founders’ English Aristocracy experience, the Constitution was written to keep the government, and not the people, in check. This has been turned on its head in spite of the tools the writers postulate and now we are governed by a fourth unconstitutional branch of government (Administrative State) instead of our chosen representatives. In this way we are governed by regulation and rules issued by administrative forces instead of laws passed by elected officials who can be held to account. 

These elites (unelected bureaucrats) have created just what George Mason, Patrick Henry and others feared; hence Col. Mason’s vote against the Constitution. Col. Mason believed the laws of the general government as presented was paramount to the laws and Constitutions of the several states, thus providing only a shadow of protection to the States. George Mason recognized that laws created by men often show little concern for the effects and consequences of their work.

I wholeheartedly agree the Con-Con shouldn’t be a “partisan issue — it’s a matter that ought to concern all Americans” but the writers of the article offer no real solutions. They say, “Let’s solve our problems using the many political tools we already have, and not jeopardize our Constitution.” They fail to mention what these tools might be, but whatever they are, the fact that these tools have failed miserably should be obvious to all.

SCR112 will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress. All good! The Congress has only the authority to name the date, time and location for the Convention of States after receiving the Article V same Resolutions from the 34 states. The Founders were servants to their country and served the people rather than serving themselves like many today. They didn’t envision politicians holding office 30-40 years or more as we see today.

I have not spoken personally to any legislators, but hear rumblings of some fearing retribution for voting for SCR112 come election time. I don’t believe that anyone would be turned out of office for doing the right thing and to help further a good outcome. All legislators swore to uphold the Constitution and when anyone can see the real need for Article V SCR112 but fail to arise to the occasion due to agendas, cowardice, or whatever, the results of their failure to approve the provision that the Founders provided cannot end well. We the People are counting on you to have the courage to do what’s right. In one case, I have heard one say “it just won’t work.” I guess that means he will attempt to see it doesn’t work.

As I mentioned, the Founders put Article V there for good reason. The wisdom of the Constitution speaks for itself. I am very grateful the creators of this document, which has given us the wonderful freedoms we have, wasn’t prepared by any current naysayer.

Time is running out. Please help by having your senator vote for SCR112.

• • •

Larry Runkle is a Kootenai County resident.