# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 20 2016_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ultimately has the responsibility, under Constitution Art. XI B 1–3, to “promote and maintain unity of
doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod.” The 1956 convention adopted this mechanism (of
appeal in case of inaction of district officials to the President of the Synod, for him to act) as an organic
clarification in bylaw of a power the Constitution already granted the President in essence.
In the case of the latter (1989–2004) provision, the record provides no positive constitutional rationale.
Bylaws already adopted by the Synod in convention deserve the presumption of constitutionality, as the
convention is the “principle legislative assembly” of the Synod (Bylaw 3.1.1) and adopts bylaws only
after positive review by the Commission on Constitutional Matters (Bylaw 7.1.1). Upon later review,
could they be shown to conflict with the Constitution, they would, of course, be invalid. The
commission’s two narrowly-focused reviews of this latter bylaw provision, as applied in an exceptional
case, avoided finding it in conflict with Constitution Art. XI B 1–3’s assignment of these responsibilities
to the President of the Synod by grounding the provision instead under Constitution Art. XIII 2.
While such narrow reviews avoided finding the latter bylaw provision in conflict with the Constitution,
this latter provision and, importantly, the Referral Panels subsequently adopted in its place [Bylaws
2.14.5–2.14.5.3, etc.], are certainly less consistent with the Constitution’s overall design and framework
than the former (Constitution Art. XIV).
Moreover, this review finds the change of the Bylaws in 1989 and subsequently (namely, to remove the
right of appeal for action to the President, should district officials fail to act, and to replace it first with an
appeal to the Praesidium and then with an appeal to a Referral Panel) to conflict with the Constitution of
the Synod. This change unconstitutionally deprived the President of the Synod of procedures for
exercising a power granted him in Constitution Art. XI B 1–3. That this power to receive appeals for
action, in case of the inaction of district officials, is one of the means constitutionally “at [the President’s]
command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod”
(Constitution Art. XI B 3) was the opinion of the Synod in convention in 1956. It expressed this opinion
explicitly and with its unique and final interpretive power. It must therefore be the opinion also of this
commission.

i

1971 Res. 5-14 (Proceedings, p. 156f.) modified the provision to read, “If the District officers fail to act, the
President of Synod, by virtue of the power given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1–3, inclusive) may on his
own initiative institute proceedings, take administrative action, and, if necessary, present charges to the appropriate
District Commission on Adjudication, provided, however, that such must be in the same manner as hereinabove set
forth for the District officers.” (1971 Bylaw 5.13, Handbook, p. 115)
1983 Res. 5-20A (Proceedings, pp. 188f.; see Reports 5-03 and 5-04 in 1983 Workbook, pp. 200–213) altered it
again: “If the District officers fail to act within 60 days after the complainant has notified the District President in
writing that he wishes to pursue the matter, the complainant may petition the President of Synod, who by virtue of
the power given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1–3, inclusive) shall make inquiries and may on his own
initiative institute proceedings, take administrative action, and, if necessary, present charges to the appropriate
District Commission on Adjudication. If after a reasonable time the synodical President does not intend to institute
proceedings, he shall so inform the complainant and the involved member in writing” (1983 Bylaw 8.41 [g],
Handbook, p. 194).
1986 Res. 5-02A (Proceedings, pp. 163f.), originating with the Commission on Structure, elaborated the meaning of
the 1983 Bylaw words, “If the District officers fail to act,” replacing them with the text, “If the District President
declines to commence an action to terminate membership, or if he neither suspends nor declines to suspend the
member” (1986 Bylaw 2.27 [f], Handbook, p. 31).
ii

CCM Minutes, 10 Nov 1955, p. 39. See also “Report of the Committee on Constitutional Matters,” 1956
Proceedings, p. 445.
iii

The convention’s action in 1956 establishes not only that Const. Art. XI B 1–3 grants this power to the President,
but also that no other constitutional article diminishes this power. Significantly, Constitution Art. XII 7, stating that

CCM Minutes – June 20, 2016 – Page 143