Dear editor:

A recent event at the Cody Public Library was promoted as a community educational program. A speaker from the John Birch Society came to explain why citizens should strongly oppose an Article V Convention of States. The presentation raised concerns that such a convention could be hijacked by an abusive Congress, become ungovernable, break its own rules, or turn into a “runaway convention.” It also suggested that the U.S. Constitution was created under similarly chaotic circumstances.

Historical truth shows otherwise. Two days before the Constitution was signed, George Mason warned that allowing amendments only through Congress would be inadequate if Congress became untrustworthy or corrupt. He proposed adding the second avenue in Article V, and it was accepted without debate. Isn’t it time to use it? Most citizens recognize that Washington, D.C., is a swamp, and Congress will not restrain itself. In essence, three reforms are needed: term limits for Congress and federal appointees, an end to reckless spending before the nation goes over the cliff, and a stop to federal intrusion into matters the Constitution reserves to the states.

An Article V Amending Convention is not a broad Constitutional Convention with the power to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. It is limited to proposing amendments and may only add to the existing document, not remove from it. That should ease concerns about altering the Constitution’s articles or weakening the Bill of Rights. To convene, two-thirds of the states — 34 in all — must apply for the same purpose; 20 have already done so on the basis described above. Any proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states, before it can take effect. This provides a strong safeguard: As few as 13 states can block any unacceptable proposal.

A substantial body of law, including Supreme Court precedent, supports an Article V Convention of States. Past interstate conventions have operated smoothly under established rules. Because the 34 states required to call a convention represent a supermajority, a minority would be unable to derail the process, even if it tried. To learn more, attend an “Article V Convention of States & Coffee” meeting on the last Saturday of each month from 9-10 a.m. at Rawhide Coffee Shop in Cody.

In the event, the meeting at the library was fairly cordial, comprising three groups: Article V supporters and opponents and a number of curious citizens keen to learn more. The presenter noted that all groups agreed that Washington, D.C., is a problem, but merely differed on which solution was more safe or more dangerous.

Supporters of the Article V route opt for the clearly-delineated constitutional way. Wyoming would make a historical leap by signing on.

Sheila Leach

Stephen E. Mainini, MD

Cody