MY TURN: Legislatures: Vote yes for Article V

On Jan. 25, Mr. Green of Coeur d’Alene wrote an op-ed titled “MY TURN: Just Say No" which raised several concerns about convening an Article V Convention, which is currently under consideration in the Idaho State Capitol. I’d like to discuss his positions and address them one at a time. 

Mr. Green states that the historical challenges faced during the creation of the U.S. Constitution highlight the immense difficulties in forming a functional government. The 1787 Constitutional Convention, according to Mr. Green, succeeded largely because of the exceptional character and intellect of its delegates. 

Mr. Green also appears to be implying that the Founders operated outside the scope of their commissions by creating a completely new constitution. I state that Mr. Green's claim is inaccurate because the Founding Fathers acted within their authority because their commissions, particularly the Annapolis and Philadelphia conventions, empowered them to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The final Constitution was consistent with that broader mandate to ensure effective governance, and it was ultimately ratified by nine of the 13 states, affirming its legitimacy. These are established facts that are easily verified with some research. Moving on … 

I need to make the point that Mr. Green seems to believe that the proposed Article V Convention would be a “true” constitutional convention, which it is not! It would be an “amendatory” convention, which is defined as “a formal gathering of representatives, typically from the states, convened under the authority of Article V of the U.S. Constitution whose sole purpose is to propose amendments to the Constitution.” So no, it is not a true Constitutional Convention, which is defined as “a formal gathering convened to create or entirely replace a nation's constitution.” I can state unequivocally that the Article V Convention and the focus of Convention of States Action group is to call an amendatory Article V Convention and propose amendments, nothing more. 

So, while the 1787 Convention did face significant challenges, the Founding Fathers intentionally included Article V in the Constitution to provide a pathway for necessary updates as times would likely require. In my mind, the ability to amend the Constitution reflects its resilience and adaptability, not its frailty. 

Furthermore, 19 states have already passed the same resolution calling for an Article V Convention, and several more, including Idaho, may do so during the 2025 legislative session. Keep in mind that Article V requires that 2/3s (34) of our 50 states all pass this same legislation and then, when that happens (as I’m sure it will) it requires that 3/4s (38) of the 50 states ratify those exact same amendments. This most certainly demonstrates the many tall hurdles to be cleared to use Article V for proposing and ratifying new amendments, don’t you think? 

A quick point of reference: The most recent amendment to the U.S. Constitution was the 27th Amendment, ratified May 7, 1992, 33 years ago. Interestingly, it was originally proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights but took over 200 years to be fully ratified. Two hundred years to achieve ratification!  

Mr. Green asks: “would today’s delegates have the same wisdom and integrity as the Founding Fathers? I’m skeptical that modern delegates could uphold the national interest and individual liberties.” 

So little faith in the intellect of the 21st century as to doubt modern delegates and overlook the depth of talent, expertise and commitment present in today’s intellectuals. Just as the 1787 Convention brought together diverse perspectives to create a lasting framework, a modern convention would leverage contemporary knowledge and skills to address today’s most pressing issues. Additionally, there have already been four Article V Simulated Conventions where lawmakers have debated and voted on proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution to prepare for the actual convention and to create champions for Convention of States. These events proved the viability of the process and provided valuable insights into how such a convention would operate. I know folks that attended the last Simulated Article V Convention (September 2024) and there is no doubt that the process and procedures are very much aligned and ready to make for a successful Article V Convention. 

Mr. Green then states that Article V doesn’t specify how a convention should work. He asks, “Isn’t that ambiguity a recipe for chaos?” 

I say that the lack of specificity in Article V isn’t a flaw, it’s a feature. It allows the states the flexibility to design processes that work for the specific issues at hand. Legal scholars and constitutional experts have spent years developing frameworks to ensure that an Article V convention remains focused and well-regulated. Moreover, history shows that states have successfully collaborated in similar ways before (as I previously stated). State compact conventions, where multiple states join forces to address common challenges, are also an excellent example of this kind of coordination. The last State compact convention took place in 1922; The Colorado River Compact where states met to allocate water rights from the Colorado River. This compact, and the four others dating back to 1638, highlight how states have historically convened to address issues of mutual concern, often with significant political and constitutional impact. We know that the process is proven and sound! 

One very interesting stipulation that Mr. Green makes is that instead of changing the Constitution, we should focus on enforcing the one we already have. He states that mechanisms like Article VI and the 10th Amendment could be used to rein in federal overreach. 

To this I say that while enforcing the Constitution as written is truly important, it’s not enough! Our current government will no more amend the Constitution to reduce its own powers than they would all donate their salaries to charity and use publicly available health care. Our nation’s needs have evolved and some challenges we face today were truly unimaginable to the Founding Fathers. An Article V convention offers a legitimate and constitutional way to address the issues that often-used mechanisms cannot adequately resolve. 

“It seems risky to take such a bold step.” I chuckled at this statement by Mr. Green, though no disrespect intended. The Founders gave us Article V precisely because they anticipated that bold steps might someday be necessary. This isn’t about recklessness; it’s about responsibility. The Constitution itself provides the means for its evolution to ensure it remains relevant and effective in serving the American people. I, along with many others, say it’s time to use this tool. 

One last point; when you think about “risky,” think of this text from the Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” This “Declaration” put a bullseye on each of the Founders’ backs. You want risky, there you go! 

So, I “JUST SAY YES.” It’s time to fix the federal government, and an Article V convention is the tool the Founders provided for “We The People” to use in such a situation. Reach out to your legislators and urge them to vote YES on proposals for an Article V convention for Idaho. Our future, and all your kids and grandkids futures depend on it. 

• • •

Ken Whaley is a Careywood resident.