Op-Ed: Open Letter in Response to Idaho GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon’s Personal Opinion
By Eric Redman • January 14, 2024Mrs. Moon,
I appreciate your willingness to volunteer to be the Idaho GOP Chairwoman, but I was disappointed you chose to express your personal opinion of opposition to Article V written under your title as the Chair of the Idaho Republican Party.
There is no Resolution, nor is there any statement, in the Idaho State Republican Platform opposing the U.S. Constitution Article V. In fact, the 2016/2020 Platform of the National Republican Party in the Government Reform section calls for a Constitutional “Balanced Budget Amendment.” In addition, the National Platform includes an endorsement of “Term Limits for members of Congress” to be advanced as a Constitutional Amendment by the States. The Platform expresses the Quiet Tyranny of the “Nanny State” by the multiple Administrative Agencies, to name only a few: Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Labor and the Federal Communications Commission. Under Education, the National GOP Platform states that the Constitution gives no role for the federal government in education, therefore the Department of Education itself is not constitutional. Education is entirely the responsibility of the States per their State Constitutions.
With the National GOP Platform in mind, during the last several years over 27,000 constituents in Idaho have signed petitions for the Idaho legislators to pass an Article V Convention of States Resolution to propose Amendments with these three subject Convention topics:
1) Restricting federal spending, reducing our national debt;
2) Term Limits for federal officials, members of Congress, and unelected bureaucrats; and
Advertisement3) Limiting federal overreach to return power to the States
To date, 20 States have passed by their legislative majority the same subject topic area Resolution:: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, West Virginia, Indiana, Mississippi, Kansas, Tennessee and Missouri. There was no fear holding these State legislators back!
I understand your husband may be or has been on a board of the John Birch Society (JBS), and JBS is opposed to Article V, but as the Chair of the Idaho GOP you do not represent the JBS. The original founders of the JBS were in agreement with calling for our Constitution’s “Article V Convention of States for Proposing Amendments” but with a change of leadership in the 70’s, JBS chose to oppose Article V. What a shame, because in 1983, with President Reagan’s blessing, there were 32 States with Article V Resolutions for a “Balanced Budget Amendment.” But JBS and the George Soros-funded multiple organizations like “Common Cause” convinced a couple of States to rescind their Resolution, resulting in not reaching the 34-state threshold needed to move forward with the Convention. The federal debt was close to 1.5 trillion dollars at that time. Now, the federal debt is 34 trillion dollars.
The U.S. Constitution Founders added Article V to the Constitution by unanimous vote. Those Founders, in their amazing wisdom, predicted that in the future Congress and the Executive branch might become overreaching in their limited government role and usurp the States and their citizen’s ability to govern more locally.
As a former Idaho State Legislator, I and two other Idaho legislators attended the 2016 simulated “Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments” in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, with legislators and representatives from our 50 States. In August 2023, three legislators from Idaho attended a second simulated Article V Convention of States with legislators from 49 States to reconfirm how smooth and orderly a Convention of States to propose Amendments will be run in the future.
The Heritage Foundation, a Washington D.C. “Think Tank for Policy Impact,” and likely the most influential organization to the members of Congress, attended the 2023 simulated Convention of States. Its leadership has since expressed full support to our three topics proposed in a Resolution for an Article V Convention of States.
Additionally, other endorsers include: Governor Ron DeSantis, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Mark Meckler, Colonel Allen West, Ben Shapiro, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, Governor Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Senator Rick Santorum, Charlie Kirk, Constitution attorney Michael Farris (Home School Legal Defense Association and Alliance Defending Freedom), Constitution attorney and newly elected Congressional Speaker Mike Johnson, Constitutional Scholars Rick Green, David and Tim Barton, Pete Hegseth and Robert G. Natelson — Constitutional Scholar, law professor, attorney and the most published active scholar on the U.S. Constitution’s amendment procedure—just to name a few of the exceptional individuals who have joined the growing list of American freedom fighters.
The fact is true there has never been an Article V Convention of States called by We the People to propose amendments to the Constitution; but there has been many State Compacts by multiple States in similar convention mode. The States have ratified the 27 Amendments that began through Article V originated by Congress. Unfortunately, our federal leaders have come to enjoy their power and will never entertain the topic of proposed Amendments in our Resolution. Let us use our Constitution to save our Republic to return the freedoms the Founders gave us.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Redman, former Idaho District 2 Representative
This Op-Ed was submitted by Eric Redman. Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.
Tags: Article V, Constitutional Convention, Convention of States, Dorothy Moon, Eric Redman, Federal Overreach, GOP Party Platform, John Birch Society, National Debt, term limits, The Heritage Foundation
21 thoughts on “Op-Ed: Open Letter in Response to Idaho GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon’s Personal Opinion”
Comments are closed.
Dorothy Moon should not have to give up her right to speak or express an opinion as IDGOP CHAIR.
One certainly can support the admirable tenets of 1) Restricting federal spending, reducing our national debt; 2) Term Limits for federal officials, members of Congress, and unelected bureaucrats; and 3) Limiting federal overreach to return power to the States without wanting a Convention of States.
I read Ms. Moon’s op-ed and thought her arguments against a Convention of States were quite sound.
Curious, I looked up Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) scores for Mr. Redman and Ms. Moon. I consider IFF scores a valuable tool for evaluating what’s good for Idaho and America. Here’s what I found:
For Eric Redman:
2015 – Freedom – F
2016 – Freedom – D
2017 – Freedom – F
2018 – Freedom – C
And for Dorothy Moon:
2017 – Freedom – A+
2018 – Freedom – A+
2019 – Freedom – B+ | Spending – A-
2020 – Freedom – A- | Spending – A-
2021 – Freedom – A+ | Spending – A-
2022 – Freedom – A | Spending – A+ | Education – A
How IFF Analyzes its metrics:
* Freedom: https://idahofreedom.org/freedom-metric/
* Education: https://idahofreedom.org/education-metric/
* Spending: https://idahofreedom.org/spending-metric/
IFF is not a valid source for evaluating the effectiveness, professionalism and ability of legislators to critically evaluate issues. It should only be used to rate legislation, which is what they are great at. We have conservative legislators who are graded poorly by IFF as a result of being on certain committees. As usual, there is more to the story than presented
Teresa, Your statement could be considered a glaring exposure of your position. It may be better to use specifics rather than assault an organization especially when they are mere opinions. Talk facts and get people’s attention, like maybe talk substance in Article 5 rather than ripping the person? Maybe start by reviewing the metrix for the bills and go from there. Start by telling us which ones you disagree with, you could do that with Article 5 too, maybe teach people one perspective and I could share the other and let them decide. Why beat people over the head, sounds more totalitarian than liberty but that is just my opinion. You really should be ashamed of yourself for that smear piece. Totally bad form.
I originally supported the Article V calling for a Convention of States, mostly due to reading Mark Levin’s book on the issue. Since then I’ve been convinced that the world of attorneys would turn this 3 issue platform into a Constitutional Convention, opening the US Constitution to every imaginable change. To me, it seems unsafe to endanger the Constitution by a take over by people who don’t have the same values about freedom as the Founding Fathers.
You are absolutely correct. Liberals would push their own agenda for free education, housing, healthcare, a living wage, pensions, abortion rights, etc. These people tend to be nonbelievers, atheists, and agnostics who lack moral guardrails provided by many religions. As such, they will do ANYTHING to get their liberal utopia written into the Constitution. Conservatives tend to be Christians or God-fearing people who won’t do ANYTHING to get their conservative ideals placed into law. You tell me, given this disparity of morality, who do you think would prevail at a constitutional convention? If you think liberals cheat with voting, you ain’t seen nothing until all the cards are on the table at an Article V convention. Our founders put Article V into the Constitution believing moral people would be involved in such a convention. Their assumption is no longer accurate today.
Realizing the audience, I’m astounded every time I hear fellow Republicans admit they are concerned about the agency given to someone to represent them especially if the representative of concern is a state legislator. We’re talking about people who are our neighbors, who are approachable, and who are not being exposed to the siren call of corrupting influence in Washington, D.C. These are the sort of people who will be sent to a convention and were sent to the two simulated Article conventions. We can trust them to act in our best interest because they are not career politicians and have to live under the laws they pass or amendments they propose, whether they are in Boise or a convention.
Now this is to say nothing of the unambiguous requirement of the 38 states for ratification of any amendment proposed. There is no way around it and that is why I would “risk” a convention over praying and hoping Congress will propose amendments to limit their own power.
You’re either willfully ignorant or duplicitous.
The Constitution is ignored now. It won’t suddenly be adhered to after a Convention of States.
It’s damn hard to see any benefit. The RINOs and deep-staters would gleefully join progressives and finish off the Constitution once and for all.
Oh, ha – I see his IFF score. Eric Redman IS the RINO.
One can only imagine what kinds of cronyism tools he’d love to cement in the Constitution. He probably found it quite inconvenient was a leftist legislator.
Idaho needs more Leaders like Dorothy Moon!
To those who oppose an Article Five Convention, a simple reminder: it takes a ratification vote by 3/4 of the States to make anything that comes from an Article 5 Convention binding. That’s straight in line with the original ratification of the Constitution itself.
And let’s also address the fears of a “runaway” Convention. These fears are entirely hypothetical and anyone who looks at the Convention pointed out by this author can see exactly what came out of that Convention. Argue merits. Don’t fearmonger.
And let’s ask what the alternative IS at this point? Are we going to get Congress to pass term limits or a balanced budget? Are we going to get Congress to disband many of the Federal agencies which infringe upon our freedoms? That doesn’t have a prayer of passing given that half of the existing Republicans are RINO’s anyway – just like our current Idaho State government.
So please. You’re welcome to object to a Con-Con. But do it with a _real_ argument not a contrived one. Do it with facts not hyperbole or the unproven hypothetical.
IFF scores closed the deal for me, thank you, Ed who spent the time and effort to bring this to the table.
I go with the IFF research, not some RINO’s opinion. I support Mrs. Moon.
Under the present set of political dynamics in the country and the fact that half of the states are in far left control; the idea that a superior outcome can be reached at a Con Con is ludicrous. The Constitution was conceived by men with a far better understanding of morality and civilization than is now possessed by the average citizen in this country. What is needed is a strict implementation of the original constitution and widespread nullification of federal “laws”.
Soros may have originally been in support of the convention. Supposedly he has changed his mind and now funds efforts to oppose it.
And guess what happens when people see his opposition? They swallow the bait and fight to make this a reality. As said in an above comment, the convention will open the door to those who want to destroy the Constitution and then confiscate your firearms.
Why would Soros fund the pro-constitution, pro-freedom, Christian-centered Convention of States organization?? He funds people and movements that are Anti-American and promote chaos.
He isn’t funding it but initially he liked the idea and one can only wonder why.
Dude– you don’t get it. She isn’t opposed to a Convention of States, but now is not the time! The Marxist left is full of themselves and a COS, today, might go the opposite way from what we intend it to me.
An ad hominem declaration—What does the John Birch Society have to do with the price of peanuts or the subject of this article? Dispositive and determinative statements are never conclusive. Our own Bill of Rights is a Collection of dispositive statements defining what government cannot do, but the argument between Conservatives and RHINO Progressives is always about what government can do. The author of this argument commits this classic error and conservatives should never take the bait. Proving something that doesn’t exist–is far more difficult than proving something that does.
Our First Constitutional Convention was put forward by the States in order to Amend the Articles of Confederation. The result was they completely overturned the articles and the States Ratified a brand new constitution. There is a precedent for an Article V catastrophe and we should follow Mrs. Moon’s advice and direction
Thank you Rep. Redman, from the very left city of Moscow, you offered a much needed conversation AFTER attending COS simulation and doing your homework. Your conclusion was and IS correct.
It seems that the Constitution of the USA gets no respect, even when lawfully adjudicated. But that gives us no reason to neglect it. “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing”….Edmund Burke
Eric… and to all that support his position, do you know the other side of what he isn’t saying? Do you care? You should. Consider my rebuttal to Eric found here and make sure to leave comments: https://www.tommunds.com/post/tom-s-rebuttal-to-eric-redmon-s-opposition-to-moon-s-article-opposing-article-5
Eric Redman. The guy who ran as a conservative and betrayed his constituents. Once elected, he was one of the worst RINOs in the Legislature.
Go back to you trough, Mr. Piggy.