Reps. Judy Boyle and Ilana Rubel in their “Do not be conned by the ‘Con-Con’…” guest opinion showed their constituents and all the readers of this paper their ignorance on the subject of an Article V convention. A “convention for proposing amendments” is an alternative to a two-thirds vote in Congress. That is all. It doesn’t “open up every part of the Constitution ... including the ratification process.” If this were true, then Congress could, during any given session, unilaterally propose and approve a new Constitution without the consent of the states. This would be in direct contradiction to the wording of Article V, but so is what the two representatives have told us.
Perhaps it would be best to see what the Founders had to say. In 1803, District Judge, St. George Tucker wrote “Both of these provisions appear excellent. Of the ... former [Congress], we have already had most satisfactory experience. The latter [convention] will probably never be resorted to, unless the federal government should betray symptoms of corruption, which may render it expedient for the states to exert themselves in order to the application of some radical and effectual remedy.”
I believe we should stop demeaning the latter provision and use it.
Brian Gross, Idaho Falls