Mr. Loudenback’s “My Turn” column regarding a Constitutional Convention (con con) was right on. Some argue that a con con can be limited to a single issue, but there’s a preponderance of evidence and legal opinion to the contrary.

In 1788, James Madison, speaking of an Article V convention, said it “would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric [of the Constitution].”

Popular alterations might ostensibly balance the budget, limit terms, define marriage, or ban flag-burning. Individuals of insidious views need just one popular cause with which to con us into trusting them, but in 1990, asked specifically whether a con con could be limited to a single issue, Judge Robert Bork, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, and judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit responded, “…I do not see how a convention could be limited to one topic once it had been called.”

Besides, amendments can be made another way: Congress proposes an amendment, which requires a 2/3 vote in each house. Then it’s submitted to the states for ratification. The legislatures of 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. At that point, it becomes part of the Constitution. This is a format for deliberations among our elected representatives who are accountable to the voters, as opposed to a con con, a format for individuals of insidious motives who are answerable to no one.

J.W. MALLOY

Post Falls