COEUR d’ALENE — A proposal asking for the U.S. Constitution amendment limiting the federal government’s spending power is heading to the Idaho Senate floor.

The Senate State Affairs Committee spent more than two hours Friday listening to public testimony on the proposal, which calls for a convention of states to enact a federal balanced budget requirement, before passing it on a 5-4 vote. Reaction from local representatives and senators Friday ranged from healthy skepticism to fears a constitutional convention could jeopardize the foundations of the country itself.

Rep. Paul Amador, R-Coeur d’Alene, said calling for a constitutional convention should not be taken lightly. The first-term representative added he believes there could be unintended and unexpected outcomes if one were to take place.

“While I share the concern that our federal deficit is growing at an unsustainable rate, I believe a more effective and responsible path to restoring fiscal responsibility in our country is by holding our federally elected officials accountable for their actions in growing the deficit,” Amador said.

Sen. Steve Vick, R-Dalton Gardens, told The Press Friday that, although he is skeptical about the bill and giving it his vote, he is taking a wait-and-see approach and will make a final decision after hearing the full Senate debate.

“I’ve done a lot of reading on it, but there is always a chance to learn something else,” Vick added.

Supporters of the resolution said every state except Vermont has some sort of balanced budget requirement and the federal government should be held to the same standard.

"We can't continue to go down this road. We have to send a message to Washington, D.C., that they have to curtail their spending," said Republican Sen. Marv Hagedorn, of Meridian, who is sponsoring the legislation. "We are addicted to our federal programs and we are living beyond our means."

Former Idaho U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, who pushed for a balanced budget amendment during his nearly 30 years in public office, said there is no appetite in Congress to rein itself in.

"We are now there at a fiscal crisis, I do believe," said Craig, who resigned from office following a sex scandal. "Will it happen in our lifetime? What if it does? I believe it will. I believe there will come a day when we can no longer honor our debt at the rate that we are currently honoring it."

Yet, critics counter there's no guarantee a convention wouldn't veer off into hot-button social issues — such as banning abortion or gay marriage — even though there is no current talk of people doing so.

“I do not think Idaho should join this ill-advised effort to amend our Constitution through the convention process,” said Rep. Sage Dixon, R-Ponderay. “The potential to jeopardize the foundations of our Republic is conspicuous, and we are too polarized and contentious politically to enact beneficial long-term policy.”

Dixon added he thinks a safer route would be for each state to petition its federal delegation to pass constitutional amendments through Congress, and be part of the deliberation process during the ratification period. Judy Edwards, president of the League of Women Voters of Idaho, said she agrees with Dixon's suggestion and it's a more representative way of addressing amendments to the Constitution.

Both the Idaho chapter of the league, as well as the national organization, oppose the push for a constitutional convention, Edwards said. According to Edwards, there are no guidelines or stipulation as to who would represent each state at a convention and no guidelines for what the agenda has to be once a convention starts.

The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times since it was ratified in 1788, and its Article V spells out two ways to propose amendments. By a two-thirds vote of each chamber, the U.S. House and Senate can refer an amendment to the states. Or two-thirds of the state legislatures can request Congress call a convention of the states.

The second method has only been used once in the nation's history. In 1933, a convention was called to ratify the 21st Amendment, which ended the nationwide prohibition on alcohol enacted in 1919.

Either 34 states or two-thirds of both houses of Congress can call for a constitutional amendment. Thirty-eight states have to approve amendments.

Twenty-eight state legislatures have already approved similar measures as of the beginning of this year. Idaho is now the latest target of the nonprofit Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force to reach the two-thirds threshold.

•••

The Associated Press contributed to this report.