Dangerous: A Compact Commission
Radio Commentary, 90.7, 91.7 New Life FM, February 14, 2014 – By Sue Ella Deadwyler
Good morning, Jim. On February 4th, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on H.B. 794 that sets up a Compact Commission to encourage 34 states to apply for an Article V constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The committee had been well-oiled to pass H.B. 794 and did so after hearing testimony FOR its passage and, then from ME, the only person speaking against it in the hearing. After a voice vote, a member of the committee asked for a hand-vote, which the chairman refused, saying the representative would have to over-rule the chair to get another vote. The representative over-ruled the chair and the chair held another voice vote. He would NOT have a hand-vote.
When it was my turn to speak, I explained that I had an opposing view that I would read from the bill’s interpretation by John Eidsmoe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama. These are some of the Professor’s comments I shared with the House Judiciary Committee:“… [I]f a convention acts contrary to the compact rules, the compact states agree to withdraw from the convention. … But if some compact states withdrew and others did not, that would leave the convention in the hands of … non-compact states and … compact states that did not withdraw. … [and] [T]he Court, the Congress or the convention might decide to seat other delegations.
“… [T]he three delegates from each state shall be the governor, the speaker of the house and the president pro-tem of the Senate …[and] if any delegate violates any provision of the compact, then every delegate from that state forfeits his appointment and must return to the state capitol. Apparently the state is then unrepresented.
“… [E]very delegate shall take temporary leave of his state office while the convention is in session. This will leave 50 states without a governor, speaker, or president pro tem, all at the same time.”
He also said the bill eliminates the constitutional requirement that states deliberate again to decide whether the proposed amendment was really a wise idea. His short conclusion was: “Unfortunately, this bill opens a whole new Pandora’s box without completely closing the old one!” For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.