February 11, 2026
Could Our Constitution Hang by a Thread?
By: ID Senator Tammy Nichols
Idaho House Republicans recently passed–by a razor thin margin–a resolution applying for Congress to organize a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution.
Now the proposal heads to the Senate. The stated justification: America and the dollar are racing toward a disastrous fiscal cliff; only a convention called by Congress to amend the US Constitution with a “Balanced Budget Amendment” can save us.
This logic is deeply flawed and deeply concerning.
Let’s work backwards from the promised outcome. Balancing the budget sounds prudent, even virtuous. But drafts of the Balanced Budget Amendment include a gaping escape clause:
Congress may suspend this requirement during a “national emergency.” The problem? The United States has been in a continuous state of national emergency since November 14, 1979 when President Carter declared one during the Iran Hostage Crisis. That emergency with its successors has never ended. This fact alone should end the discussion.
Experience reinforces skepticism. Forty-nine of the fifty states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions or their statutes. Yet some of the most fiscally dysfunctional states have the strictest balanced budget language, while some of the most fiscally sound states have relatively weak requirements. While balanced budget language is a good thing, it is no silver bullet. Constitutional language does not compel fiscal discipline; character and leadership do.
But assume, for the sake of argument, that the convention to propose amendments went perfectly. No conflict. No special interest groups. A convention full of pro-Constitution legal minds peacefully meet and successfully drafts clean, elegant language that everyone agrees on. What then actually changes?
We are told that mandating fiscal balance will fix our problem. But how? Will Congress print more money, if so, with what consequences? Will Congress raise taxes? Slash defense? Cut welfare or education? Over what time frame? And who decides whether Congress has complied, and how is compliance enforced? Promoters cannot answer these questions because the amendment doesn’t answer them. Whatever this amendment would really mean for America, without any concrete plan or meaningful enforcement mechanism, and with its gaping emergency loophole, it becomes an enormously expensive virtue signaling sinkhole.
But there is a deeper contradiction that is even more troubling. The entire effort is predicated on a declared loss of faith in Congress. We are told Congress has failed us. Congress is corrupt, irresponsible, and incapable of averting our plunge over the fiscal cliff, so the states must act.
And how do the states act? By authorizing CONGRESS to call a convention to propose amendments to force Congress to do something that Congress will have to figure out and do in the end?!!!
That is not threatening Congress, that is handing Congress more power, including the opportunity to reshape the Constitutional limits of their own power!
Supporters make confident promises about the convention: one state/one vote; delegates appointed and controlled by state legislatures; only a single subject of amendment; ratification by state legislatures. But none of these assurances appear in Article V. The Constitution is clear: Congress–the people we mistrust so much will make all of the most critical decisions, including how delegates are chosen, how representation is apportioned, and how proposed amendments are ratified. If states object after the fact, it will be too late! Under Article V, the states’ only guaranteed power is to apply. That is hardly a position of control.
Speaking of these types of convention questions, Rex E. Lee, former president of BYU Law school, summarized reality bluntly: “The only safe statement that could be made…is that no one knows. Anyone who purports to express a definitive view on these subjects is either deluded or deluding.”
Somehow, his proposition continues to be compared to a final miracle cure, a last resort. One legislator likened it to using defibrillator paddles on a patient in cardiac arrest. But this analogy flatlines. The dollar is not the heart of America, our Constitution is!
A more accurate comparison is this: A patient in liver failure shows up in the ER, only to have a panicked doctor initiate open-heart surgery because “doing something” feels better than doing nothing. The patient is now worse off, facing new risks and challenges, and no closer to recovery.
Most alarming of all, authorizing Congress to call a convention could easily exacerbate and accelerate the very financial instability it purports to resolve. Countries like Chile have recently provided undeniable examples of how investors flee and currencies collapse as a result of calling a constitutional convention. Markets depend on predictability for stability. Nothing could hurt the dollar more than injecting massive political uncertainty into an already polarized environment. Our own historical experience is clear: America’s financial stability followed the political stability provided by our Constitution–it did not precede it.
Will authorizing Congress to call a convention to reopen our nation’s foundational document in an already polarized political environment usher in unity, restraint, and calm? Will it really be a cure for financial calamity? I doubt it. And I suspect many Americans do too.
In Liberty,
Senator Tammy Nichols
District 10
In Liberty,
Senator Tammy Nichols
District 10
