# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 20 2016_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

district presidents shall “moreover, especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of
office of the ordained and commissioned ministers of their district,” read in 1956 as it does today. Constitution Art.
XII 7 was understood by the convention as in no way diminishing the President’s authority, inherent in Constitution
Art. XI B 1–3, to act, should district officials fail to do so.
Constitution Art. XII 8 and Constitution Art. XIII 2 were altered in 1965 when the adoption of the adjudication
system transferred final expulsion proceedings from district and Synod conventions to Boards of Appeals. Before
and after 1965, Constitution Art. XII 8 empowered district presidents “to suspend from membership.” Before 1965,
Constitution Art. XIII 2 also read, “Such expulsion is executed, as a rule, by the Districts of Synod; yet those so
expelled have a right of appeal to Synod.” Neither the wording of Constitution Art. XII 2 (before 1965) nor that of
Constitution Art. XII 8 (either before or after 1965) was interpreted so as to diminish the President’s constitutional
authority to act, should district officials fail to do so.
Since 1965, Constitution Art. XIII 2 has read, “Expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure as
shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod.” More flexibility is allowed the convention in setting out an expulsion
procedure in the Bylaws, but at the same time this constitutional change prohibits, in the case of expulsion
proceedings, exercise of constitutional powers for which there is no bylaw procedure specified.
iv

See CCM Minutes, 18 May 1952, 28 Sept 1952, 2 Feb 1953, 21 May 1953, 1 Jan 1955, 10 Nov 1955. The
presentation and adoption of this proposal can hardly be construed otherwise than as the result of a careful
constitutional analysis.
v

An opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters “shall be binding on the question decided unless and until
it is overruled by a convention of the Synod. Overtures to a convention that seek to overrule an opinion of the
commission shall support the proposed action with substantive rationale from the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [c], emphasis added). Implicit here is the recognition that not every
resolution of a convention has this final interpretive force. It is possible for the commission or the convention to find
that a convention has acted in a manner inconsistent with or contradictory to Synod’s Constitution and therefore
invalidly (Constitution Art. XIV). See, e.g., 1962 Res. 6-01, “Constitutionality of Resolution 9 of Committee 3 of
the 1959 Synodical Convention,” Proceedings, p. 122; and “Supplement to Report of Committee on Constitutional
Matters,” id., p. 187.
Where, however, the convention as the Synod’s “principal legislative assembly” (Bylaw 3.1.1) has explicitly and
with substantive rationale interpreted aspects of the Constitution, it has exercised its own final interpretive
authority—that greater, original authority from which it has delegated to the commission its provisional (“unless and
until overruled”) interpretive authority. For such an exercise of the convention’s final interpretive authority, see,
e.g., 1973 Res. 2-12, “To Understand Article II of the Synod’s Constitution as Requiring the Formulation and
Adoption of Synodical Doctrinal Statements.”
vi

1989 Res. 5-08A (Proceedings, pp. 130–131) put this provision into the hands of the Praesidium, instead of the
Synod President acting alone (1989 Bylaw 2.28, Handbook, pp. 31–32). 1992 Res. 5-02A (Proceedings, pp. 144–
147) adapted that provision to the new dispute resolution framework (1992 Bylaw 2.27, Handbook, pp. 30–31).
Finally, 2004 Res. 8-01A (Proceedings, pp. 165–184) removed the bylaw provision for the Praesidium to act when a
district president would not instead allowing an accuser, in case of district president inaction, to request formation of
a Referral Panel, which request the district president must grant (2004 Bylaws 2.14.5–2.14.5.3, Handbook, p. 66).
With none of these changes did the convention speak as to the constitutionality of the pre-1989 provision, by which
the President of Synod had authority to initiate proceedings in case of a district president’s inaction. On that matter,
the constitutional interpretation of the 1956 convention stands.
vii

CCM Op. 02-2283, 21–22 Oct 2002, argues similarly, regarding a vice-president acting for the President of the
Synod to suspend, reading in part:
The officer of the Synod who is required to conclude whether the facts form a basis for expulsion
from the Synod under Bylaw 2.27 c is not granted the authority of the President of the Synod. The
dispute resolution process commenced under Bylaw 2.27 designates the individual who is to make
the decision required by Bylaw 2.27 c. The individual initially designated to make that choice is
the President. If the President is a party to the matter in dispute, has a conflict of interest, or is
unable to act, the First Vice-President or the next qualified synodical officer is designated to

CCM Minutes – June 20, 2016 – Page 144