I read with interest the spirited Carlson-Benko-Mott exchange on the Montana Perspective page of the Inter Lake about how to respond to a president who has failed to honor his constitutional duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

As all the authors recognize, that language is not a request that the president enforce the laws. It is mandatory. The “take care” phrase is copied from 18th century British and American documents requiring (not requesting) the performance of duties. The British did not permit even their king to neglect enforcement of the laws: In 1689, for example, James II lost his throne for picking and choosing which laws he wanted to enforce.

The “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” phrase, which describes a basis for impeachment, also was imported from British practice. The phrase has technical meaning. It means breach of trust, and it includes neglect of duty. Thus, Mr. Ralph Benko errs when he says failure to enforce the laws is not an impeachable office. It absolutely is. (The Constitution’s impeachment language is explained in my book “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.”)

On the other hand, impeachment always has been a political as well as a legal decision. Nothing in the Constitution requires the House to begin unwinnable impeachment proceedings. In our current political climate, an impeachment attempt would almost certainly backfire and give Obama’s party a victory in the next election. The president would love to be thrown into that particular briar patch.

Benko does not think the Boehner lawsuit is a long shot. But Speaker Boehner is correct to admit that it is. The suit must surmount several legal obstacles, among them the legal doctrines of standing and justiciability by which courts refuse to hear certain kinds of cases. If the Boehner case gets beyond those hurdles, there will be other factual and legal disputes.

Nevertheless, I agree with Speaker Boehner that the lawsuit is probably the best among several unpleasant choices.

Finally: The article by Gary and Joan Carlson says the “convention of states” movement is not the solution to the Obama presidency. That misses the point. The convention of states movement is not targeted at Obama, but at a problem much larger than any one presidency.

For decades, the federal government has been overspending, overtaxing, exceeding its power, and sometimes abusing its power. The Founders foresaw that possibility, and they inserted in Article V of the Constitution a tool the people could use to cure the problem. 

The tool was based on a provision then appearing in the Georgia state constitution. Essentially, it is an interstate task force which the Constitution calls a “convention for proposing amendments.” It is assigned one or more specific problems and then it may propose one or more amendments for the states to consider.

In other words, the “convention of states” people are acting as the Founders intended us to act. With more and more states signing on, it increasingly looks like the movement will be successful.

You can find information on all these issues at my website at http://constitution.i2i.org.

 Rob Natelson, of Lakewood, Colo., is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute and the Montana Policy Institute. He was formerly a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana.