Hartley letter: Convention of states

With respect to the guest opinion in the Idaho Statesman of Feb. 2, from the constitutional law professor at Concordia University, McKay Cunningham, I find it interesting that he is discussing a “constitutional convention” rather than a “convention of the states” and fails to mention that any amendment passed by two-thirds of this convention must still be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of our Constitution. These two significant points make me question his legitimacy in his stated field. If Cunningham feels that a convention under Article V of our Constitution is such a risk, I suggest that we watch the recently introduced term limits amendment by Rep. Raul Labrador. If two-thirds of both Houses of Congress agree to limit their terms and then pass this amendment on to the states for ratification I would give them the benefit of the doubt, as touted by Cunningham. If our U.S. Congress fails in this endeavor (which is favored by a vast majority of both sides of the political spectrum), I would suggest that a convention is our only recourse.

This story was originally published February 24, 2017 at 7:28 PM with the headline "Hartley letter: Convention of states."