Isaac Latterell and Lederman Playing Fire With the Constitution

Despite the idea that Mr. Latterell thinks he can teach about government, it appears he could use a lesson in the Constitution.  Latterell and Lederman have introduced a resolution to call for a Convention of States.  A similar call was done in Virginia and was soundly rejected on a vote of 67-29.  There were several reasons given for voting against a measure like this. 

But Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County, said on the House floor that he was concerned with the idea of a convention because the Founding Fathers “did not spell out specific rules” for such a gathering. 

“This is something very fundamental that may alter the structure of government,” Marshall said. “There is no clear understanding how this would proceed and I urge a no-vote on that.”

Even the John Birch Society has come out against such an action like the Convention of States.

The John Birch Society, which has repeatedly warned of using Article 5 to propose constitutional amendments, applauded the resolution’s defeat in the House. 

“A lot of educational effort is going into both sides of this issue; however, since an Article 5 convention process would be unlimited, the outcome of such a convention could be detrimental not only to the Constitution, but to the security and happiness of this and future generations of Americans,” said Bill Hahn, the group’s spokesman. 

In fact "Left-wing, radical" places like Renew America have explain that this Convention of States is a smoke screen to reject the Constitution.  One member on the website, Publius Huldah writes about the Convention of States idea:

But the "convention of states" conspirators [3] say the only solution is a convention to "propose amendments" to the Constitution. They tell lies about nullification – the one remedy our Framers actually advised when the feds usurp powers. They say our Constitution is the problem. They say it contains "loopholes and vague phraseology" which politicians exploit. They suggest the States are victims of federal tyranny; are the ones to "fix" our Constitution; and that the States call and control the convention. They say it is impossible for the convention to force a new Constitution down our throats. But I submit that is precisely what they intend to do.

Phyllis Schlafly writes about the call for a Convention of States

The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.

Mr. Latterell states his reasoning for his support

One of the reasons this is gaining so much momentum here, says Rep. Latterell, is that South Dakotans have a strong belief in local control: “South Dakotans are passionate about self-governance, but are growing increasingly concerned that the federal government’s continued overreach and insolvency are erasing our children’s hope for a bright future. Using Article V, we will put the federal government back in its proper place, so we can focus on living our lives the South Dakota way.”

My suggestion to Mr. Latterell is to start focusing on the needs of his District and putting forward legislation that will not damage the state and possibly the nation.