Idaho Senate nixes constitutional convention

BOISE - An effort aimed at addressing America's ongoing "addiction to spending" came up short Wednesday in the Senate, failing on a 24-11 vote.

With a Benjamin Franklin impersonator in the rotunda and a packed crowd of adults and schoolchildren in the gallery, lawmakers spent two hours debating a resolution calling for an Article V constitutional convention.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, asked Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"Our country is addicted to spending," Hagedorn said. "We're $19.9 trillion in debt. In 2016, we borrowed $587 billion. It took 200 years, from the beginning of the country to 1976, to reach the level of debt we borrowed just in 2016. ... That's going to affect everyone in this room. Either we're going to control how we change our addiction, or it will be controlled for us in a very quick and ugly manner."

Opponents acknowledged the need for fiscal restraint, but said the uncertainties of a convention outweighed the benefits.

"What would this balanced-budget amendment look like?" asked Sen. Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, R-Boise. "Would the budget need to be balanced by 2027? Would there be exceptions for war? If we don't know what it is, why would we want to do it? It doesn't feel right, and I think the risk is too great."

Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, said his reading of the Declaration of Independence and American history itself suggests a convention could not be limited to a single topic, as Hagedorn maintained.

Quoting from the Declaration, he noted that governments are instituted to preserve inalienable rights, "and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

"The right to throw off a government surely includes the ability to alter it at any time, in any way (the people) think best," Burgoyne said. "It's this principle that underlies the provision for an Article V convention. It's self-evident that the states can't and shouldn't limit the convention; it belongs to the people. I would go further and say it's not just that the delegates could do whatever they choose - I don't think Congress or the states would have the ability to stop them. The right of the people to abolish government isn't constrained."

If that's the case, Burgoyne said, then calling a convention subjects the entire Constitution to amendment, although any changes would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

"For me, I don't think the price of putting everything on the table is worth what would be gained from a constitutional amendment on a balanced budget."

Sen. Dan Foreman, R-Moscow, said he respects the intent of the resolution, but thinks a better approach is for Idaho to lead by example.

"Idaho can help Washington see the light regarding excessive spending and borrowing by beginning the process of weaning itself off federal dollars," he said.

Of the 11 senators who debated the bill, eight spoke in opposition.

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton, was all in favor of restraint, but noted that Congress has a nearly 50-year history of passing laws requiring a balanced budget or fiscal constraints - and then ignoring them.

"Those efforts fail because one Congress can't bind another," he said. "We have to start to restrain ourselves. I don't know if we'll figure that out in a convention, (but) to me, that's a good place to start."

The federal addiction to spending "isn't a Democrat problem or a Republican problem," Siddoway said. "It's an American problem. We have to get over our paranoia (about a runaway convention). Look at what our Founding Fathers did: They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor; they put it all on the line - and we're afraid to go to a meeting? Is that really where we are, we're afraid to go to a meeting to try and resolve this?"

Sen. Dan Johnson, R-Lewiston, and Sen. Carl Crabtree, R-Grangeville, joined Foreman in opposing the resolution.

A separate Article V resolution was introduced in the House last week. However, it's even broader than Hagedorn's resolution, allowing amendments dealing with federal overreach, as well as fiscal restraints. Consequently, it's unlikely to move forward.

---

Spence may be contacted at bspence@lmtribune.com or (208) 791-9168.