How did I decide how to vote on constitutional amendment convention resolutions?
So far, the most difficult decision I have had to make has been how to vote on the two resolutions relating to constitutional amendment conventions. There may be no feeling as lonely as knowing that whatever you choose many people that you know and respect will be disappointed. I feel bad that several people who have come to different conclusions have used language that suggests that somehow a person not voting how they wanted is “deluded” or “ignorant” or otherwise implied that voting for or against something implies a lack of principle or commitment.
Nothing could be farther from the truth and I respect all of my colleagues regardless of their vote. All of the representatives were literally deluged with hundreds of requests to vote for and against these resolutions. The vast majority simply had a name and a “vote yes” or “vote no” on these resolutions which is actually not helpful especially if there was no way to know if the person was real, where they lived or why they feel the way they do.
It is apparent that people whom I respect highly feel passionately on both sides of this issue. Highly intelligent and articulate people made good cases both for and against the resolutions. I spent hours listening to and reading up on both sides of the argument, pushing people to defend their position based on reason and not just passion. Ultimately, I realized that no matter which way I voted I would be voting both with and against honest and sincere people who love the Constitution.
There is no dispute that the Constitution provides two pathways for amendments to be proposed – through Congress or through the states. The Constitution does not hold one above the other in terms of priority or preference. The state legislatures clearly have the right to apply for a convention if they see fit. Any proposals coming through either method would have to also garner the approval of 38 state legislatures.
Certainly, the Congressional route has not been without its faults as evidenced by the 16th and 17th amendments. Those who are opposed to using the state route correctly point out that there is also some risk of the convention coming up with harmful changes to the constitution. There are indeed no guarantees in life. Having carefully studied and considered that risk I recognize that there is a theoretical possibility, but I am persuaded that the circumstances required for a bad outcome are certainly no greater than the Congressional route and in all likelihood less.
The next issue is whether there are amendments that actually need to be proposed. There would be no point in applying for a convention if there is nothing to do. This is a valid point.
In the entire discourse and debate, all sides recognize that there has been an expansion of the scope and reach of the federal government far beyond what was envisioned or intended in the Constitution. I do not see that slowing any time soon and in fact it seems to be accelerating. I asked many to propose alternative solutions to this problem, and have not found anything workable.
I am reminded of the maxim, “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” As I contemplated this further, I wondered whether “doing nothing” at this point in time is still the right thing.
I do not think that a balanced budget amendment will accomplish its stated objectives for a variety of reasons and find little point in calling a convention for that purpose. However, I am persuaded that something needs to be done to roll back the ever expanding interpretation of the commerce clause and restore the proper scope and role of the federal government as originally contemplated.
While I don’t know if it is even possible to get agreement on how to accomplish that, I believe that standing by without taking advantage of the one option available would be irresponsible.
Ultimately, I voted for HJR14 and plan to vote against HJR7.
