During this legislative session in Boise, there will be strong lobbying efforts to convince legislators to ask for an “Article V convention.”

U.S. Constitution Article V describes two ways in which amendments to the Constitution may be proposed and ratified. By 2/3 vote of both the U.S. House and Senate, amendments may be proposed. Or, when 2/3 of the states apply to Congress for a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, the Congress shall call one. These proposed amendments, by Congress or by convention, become part of the Constitution when ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of the states. Either method of ratification may be proposed by Congress.

An Article V convention would not be a good idea at this time of our history. The following are some reasons.

Developing our Constitution was no easy task. The first attempt to establish a government took shape in the Articles of Confederation signed in 1777. Historians often call the time between then and 1789 (when our Constitution went into effect) “The Critical Period.” There was internal conflict, vast economic problems and, because of internal instability, decreasing respect on the part of foreign nations. George Washington commented that the Articles were “… attempting the impossible …” because of the inevitable clash of 13 different interests “… actuated by local views and politics …”

In 1786, citizen representatives gathered in Annapolis to discuss this dire situation. They agreed that in May 1787 there would be a gathering of delegates in Philadelphia. The goal and “sole purpose” would be to revise the Articles of Confederation “… to be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.” It was also required that whatever the convention proposed would be agreed to by all 13 states.

Although this was a formidable task, the coincidence of courage and faith developed a rich soil for the seeds of the Constitution. As a group, the delegates were a bright array of character, intellect and practical accomplishment. Patrick Henry commented that this great task was entrusted “… to the greatest, the best, and the most enlightened of our citizens.“ Richard Lee surmised that “America probably never will see an assembly of men of a like number more respectable.”

There were passionate debates regarding how to construct a government that could serve a national interest while preserving the liberties of individual citizens. There were many seemingly immovable impasses. Only when they stopped the proceedings and turned to divine providence in prayer did they recognize a solution.

When it came to ratification, Alexander Hamilton argued against unanimity, questioning why one state should have veto power over all the rest. This led to an agreement wherein only nine of the 13 states would need to agree (and in separate conventions rather than in the legislatures) in order for the Constitution to take effect.

The “sole purpose" of the 1787 convention was thus expanded to create something completely new. Also, the threshold for ratification was lowered.

The Constitution is silent on the nuts and bolts of an Article V convention. It does say in Article I section 8 that Congress can “ … Make all laws … necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [Enumerated in section 8] and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government …” (Such as in Article V). This gives Congress great sway in terms of the details and scope.

So, in Congress, there have been many discussions and a large spectrum of ideas on the structure of an Article V convention. There are several organizations promoting one (some on the right and some on the left) and each with different reasons and strategies. Their general theme is that the federal government is out of control. Their solution is a convention to amend the Constitution.

But what would be the common character of the delegates of such a convention? It seems unlikely they would measure up to the above description by Henry and Lee. Compared to 1787, in terms of values, our society is fractured. Yet John Adams commented in 1789 that “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The solution is not to change but to enforce the Constitution. It is to advocate for the internal conversions that will lead to following the constitution as originally intended. Article VI and the 10th Amendment, already within the constitution as written, contain the mechanisms for reigning in the federal government; and without the risk of unpredictable convention parameters.

Please ask your legislator to vote no on any proposal for an Article V convention.

• • •

William Green is a Coeur d’Alene resident.