# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 20 2016_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

expel is not his but, rather, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel (or Appeal Panel,
if there is an appeal), which will consider the matter (Bylaw 8.09).
If the President of the Synod declines to seek the expulsion of a District President as a
member of the Synod, the complainant has the option to appeal such declination to the
Praesidium of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 b). Should the Praesidium decide to pursue the
expulsion from the Synod of the District President, it must follow the same procedure in
Bylaw 2.27 c as the President would have had to do should he have decided to pursue the
expulsion. As in the case of the President, the decision to expel is not that of the
Praesidium but, rather, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel or Appeal Panel.
Therefore, the synodical Vice-Presidents in their capacity as members of the Praesidium
determine the continuation of the roster status of a District President only in those very
limited situations where the Praesidium upholds the decision of the President of the
Synod that the alleged actions of the District President are insufficient to expel the
District President as a member of the Synod. (CCM Op. 01-2242, 11 Jan 2002)
Here the CCM distinguished the comprehensive sense of ecclesiastical supervision (which belongs to the
Presidents under Const. Art. XI B 1–3 and XII 6–8) from the decision to expel (governed specifically by
Constitution Art. XIII 1–2). The former belongs to the President (and district presidents); the latter, to
such entities as to whom the Bylaws might assign it in the procedure they elaborate under Constitution
Art. XIII 2, that “expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure as shall be set forth in
the Bylaws of the Synod.” In such a view there is nothing sacrosanct about the President or district
presidents alone making the decision to initiate formal proceedings, although theirs alone is the
comprehensive responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision, to which that decision ordinarily belongs.vii
Both Commission on Constitutional Matters reviews (Jan. 11, 2002 Op. 01-2242 and October 21–22,
2002 Op. 02-2283) of the 1989–2004 provision, allowing the Praesidium to act, were within the context
of an already exceptional situation, a district president being the accused. Both seem to presume the
provision’s constitutionality as that sort of “very limited situation” in which implementing bylaws (under
Constitution Art. XIII 2) might provide necessary deviations from the constitutional pattern (e.g., a vicepresident acting in the stead of a disqualified President). That is not what we have here. This provision, in
the general or ordinary case of an appeal for action against a member under district supervision, directed
the appeal for action away from the constitutionally designated recipient, namely the President (by virtue
of the power given him in Constitution Art. XI B 1–3), to the Praesidium, a recipient with no
demonstrable constitutional basis to receive such an appeal.
Ultimately, the language of Constitution Art. III, that “[e]xpulsion shall be executed only after following
such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod,” does not enable bylaws to override, in
the regular case, the design of Constitution Art. XI B 1–3 that appeal for action should be possible to the
ecclesiastical supervisor of the whole Synod. In the districts, his supervision is through the district
presidents (Bylaw 3.1.1.1 [b]; Constitution Art. XI B 1), but should they fail to act, he may do so “by
virtue of the power given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3)” (1956 Bylaw 5.23, Handbook,
n.p.). While the 1956–1989 Bylaws have been revised away, this interpretation of the Constitution by the
1956 convention stands.
3. Conclusion
Constitution Art. XIV provides that “[t]he Synod in convention may adopt bylaws that are consistent with
and do not contradict the Constitution of the Synod, which controls and supersedes such bylaws and all
other rules and regulations of the Synod.”
In the case of the former (1956–1989) provision, the case for constitutionality was explicitly made, not
only demonstrating that the adopted provision “[did] not contradict” the Constitution, but also that it was
“consistent with” the framework laid out clearly by the Constitution, that being that the President himself

CCM Minutes – June 20, 2016 – Page 142