Convention of States a worthy idea: Melson

Robert Melson, Guest columnist

So, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and El Paso Times don't like the idea of a "Convention of States."./2017)

Article V of the Constitution provides two mechanisms for proposing amendments:

Two-thirds of both houses of Congress may propose amendments.
On the application of two-thirds (presently, 34 of the 50 states) of the legislatures of the several states a convention shall be called for proposing amendments.

In either case, ratification of the proposed amendments by three-fourths of the states (presently 38 of the 50 states) is required before they may become part of the Constitution.

Clearly, the process of amendment is not meant to be easy and is hedged around with safeguards to prevent just the sort of runaway, out of control situation trumpeted in the editorial. So, far from “blowing up” the Constitution, a Convention of States is an alternative constitutional mechanism for proposing amendments

There are a number of amendments that might be proposed, among them congressional term limits, a balanced budget and a limitation on executive orders, among others.

It's pretty clear that Congress is unwilling to impose term limits on its members and more than abundantly clear that it's unable to control its bad fiscal habits

A balanced budget? Many states already have such a provision in their constitutions. Should we expect less on the national level? We blame the sitting President for the national debt, but the reality is that taxing and spending bills are the responsibility of Congress and, again, that Congress is unwilling or unable to exert the necessary discipline.

We need a limitation on using executive orders and federal regulations to enact laws, since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws. We need not look far in the past to find examples of executive overreach – both the present and the previous administrations provide sufficient examples of such abuse.

There are many other areas in which a Convention of States might act: redefining the commerce clause, which presently is interpreted to allow the federal government to exert its will in many areas of daily life which don't have anything to do with the flow of goods and services between the several states; requiring the “sunsetting” of existing tax laws; requiring a so-called super-majority of both houses in order to impose new taxes; requiring Congress to re-assert its authority over those agencies to which it has granted rule-making, enforcement and adjudication authority.

A Convention of States is, I believe, an attempt to check the growth of an increasingly out of control administrative state – an unelected government of so-called experts – and to put our fiscal house in order, acts which Congress is either unable or unwilling to do.

The mechanism for a convention is written into the Constitution, but has never been used. It's not a pistol held to the government's head and is surely not a threat to our fundamental institutions.

It's a means for the people, through their state governments, to propose changes and, equally, to reject those changes which are found to be too extreme or too potentially damaging.

Robert Melson of Northeast El Paso is a former Army officer and a retired officer of the commissioned Foreign Service corps of the State Department.