Information in Sen. Orrin Hatch's article (My View Feb. 1-2) was used to overturn a vote in the Utah Legislature already recorded, to rescind Utah's call for a constitutional convention.
The governor's office, legislative leadership and U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen all conspired to kill this rescission when rescission is happening in other states.If those supporting the calling of a new constitutional convention had a good case for their proposal, they would not need to make false statements.
1. Hatch states: "Article V includes two separate ways to propose constitutional amendments . . . Second, if Congress refuses to act, the states can apply for a constitutional convention to propose a specific and limited amendment."
That's not what Article V. says at all: Article V empowers the states to apply to the Congress to "call a convention for proposing amendments."
Article V doesn't say anything at all about a "specific and limited amendment." Article V uses the term "amendments" in the plural.
Hatch misquoted Article V to mislead people into believing that a constitutional convention could be limited to "a specific and limited amendment" (e.g., a balanced budget amendment), but this conclusion is refuted by the clear language of Article V.
We need to remind ourselves that the original constitutional convention of 1787 was not called to produce a new constitution. It was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. In that sense it was a runaway convention, and we are all grateful that James Madison and his like were delegates and "ran away" from the original intent for which the convention was called. We need no better proof of the possibility of a runaway convention than that, however.
2. Hatch states: "Article V itself contains no fewer than seven powerful safeguards against a runaway convention." On the contrary, Article V contains no safeguards at all against a runaway convention. Article V doesn't say a thing about "safeguards."
The only requirements about a convention specified in Article V are (1) that Congress receive requests from two-thirds (34) of the states and (2) that the purpose of constitutional convention be "for proposing amendments."
Hatch goes on to describe his alleged "safeguards," but they clearly do not exist in Article V or in any law.
3. Hatch states: "we must not surrender this vital constitutional right" (an alternate means of amending our Constitution). No one is suggesting that we surrender anything. We are just saying that a constitutional convention is a very bad idea to plunge into at the present time.
A responsible and wise people, however, are prudent when they exercise their right "not" to demand an open convention during a period in the history of their country when they do not feel comfortable with its outcome. That kind of intelligent denial of one's own right is the finest and most responsible use of a right. Denial to exercise a right is as important as the right to exercise.
4. Hatch states that in 1787 "the delegates sought a way to change the new system of government." That is correct, but today's average American would be shocked if he thought that delegates to a convention wished to change our present system of government. That is precisely what could happen, but neither the American people nor Hatch would be in favor of that outcome.
5. Hatch bemoans the fact that "Congress can frustrate the people's demand for proper and narrow constitutional amendments." "If the people cannot demand changes," the article goes on to say, "Congress may never propose such an amendment."
For that reason, the best possible course open to the people at this time may be safe changes of the faces of Congress through the election process. It is completely within the power of the people to rid themselves of members of Congress who refuse to enact balanced-budget legislation.
A more responsible Congress could enact this legislation without the fear of the chicanery of a runaway convention. If Congress is seen to frustrate the people's demands, change through the election process of a Congress disinclined to frustrate the people is an infinitely safer solution than by constitutional amendment.
6. Hatch states that, "Today, 32 of the necessary 34 states have petitioned for a convention to propose a balanced-budget amendment." Why didn't he mention that two of those 32 states (Alabama and Florida) rescinded their petition for a convention when they woke up to the danger? The accurate count of states now petitioning for a Constitutional Convention is not 32 but 30, and the tide is running rapidly against it.
Many observers are annoyed to find Hatch so anxious to open our Constitution to change that he would travel to Utah to pressure legislators in both parties. He should decide which level of government requires his attention and trust state lawmakers to cast the vote their constituents demanded.