Bipartisan position: Don’t get conned into a constitutional convention, Idaho | Opinion

We are of different parties and often disagree on the merits of policy. But we are totally aligned when it comes to our devotion and respect for the U.S. Constitution. We are also equally alarmed and troubled by the threat to our nation’s founding document that is coming from people willing to expose our nation’s founding document to the risks of a Constitution Convention.

There are two ways to alter the U.S. Constitution. The first — and the only way the Constitution has been amended in its 238-year history — is for Congress to propose an amendment and pass it by a two-thirds vote. For that amendment to have the force of law, three-fourths of states must ratify the amendment. It’s a trusted and transparent process that works because everyone can read the amendment language and understands what they are voting on.

But there is another, untested method to alter the Constitution. A constitutional convention, or “Con-Con,” can be requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures. There has been only one such convention in our history, in 1787 when the Constitution was written.

Unlike the amendment approach, a Con-Con opens up the whole Constitution to be rewritten as the convention delegates decide. Alterations could not be reliably limited to a particular, known proposal; delegates could concoct changes on the fly to anything and everything. 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.

Currently, there are two resolutions pending in the Legislature calling for a Con-Con. The first, HCR 9, sets the framework for selecting commissioners for Idaho’s delegation, while HCR 10, seeks to limit the agenda to a balanced budget amendment, term limits and federal overreach.

Advocates will assure you that their sole purpose is to limit discussion to these three items. But there is no basis to believe that the agenda can be contained. Once a convention is called, all is on the chopping block. The Constitutional protection of rights — free speech, gun rights, jury of our peers — all could be altered by unelected delegates. Even the ratification requirement by three-quarters of the states could be removed.

History rebuts the idea that in a Con-Con, delegates’ power could be restricted to a single item. The original 1787 Constitutional Convention was called solely to ratify the Articles of Confederation, but the delegates ignored that limitation and drafted our Constitution and new ratification rules. Top legal scholars across the ideological spectrum, from former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, agree that limitations cannot be enforced once a Con-Con begins.

This is not some far-fetched notion. Currently, 28 states have called for a Con-Con. Once that total reaches 34, Congress is required to convene one. Idaho is one of six states left standing in the way of the potential of causing significant and irreversible risk to our founding document. Meanwhile, proponents are working overtime to hit the tipping point in the Capitol. Some powerful Idaho legislators are making this a top priority this session. A House committee voted recently in favor of both resolutions and sent them to the House floor.

It’s up to the public to get involved, to loudly tell their legislators not to risk a runaway convention that could gut our precious Constitution. We agree that federal debt should be reined in and that government could be improved across the board. But there are many ways to do that without taking unconscionable risks with the document that is the foundation of America’s freedom and prosperity.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter that ought to concern all of us as Americans.