You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Indiana Senate calls for U.S. con con
- Thread starter pnac
- Start date
Of course a Constitutional convention would be dangerous, but to whom it would be dangerous depends on who controls the conventions. And even if you can get 2/3 of the states to agree to call a convention, whatever it produced would have to be ratified which means you have to get 3/4 of the states to agree with the results.
In the past, when there has been a call for a "Con con", Congress has met the demands in question to alleviate the perceived need.
As to a "limited convention", it was just such a limited convention to fix the Articles of Confederation that produced the Constitution in the first place.
In the past, when there has been a call for a "Con con", Congress has met the demands in question to alleviate the perceived need.
As to a "limited convention", it was just such a limited convention to fix the Articles of Confederation that produced the Constitution in the first place.
And as always, we'll have to pass it to see what's in it.
And we must not forget that the Court may read a radically different interpretation into the amendment once it was passed. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the States from it's inception, but years passed before the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that it did little more than grant citizenship to former slaves (which it also intended, but was not limited to). In all honesty, I see a bright future for our country, especially given how well it is performing relative to the European Union. Unfortunately, we have to battle these Constitutional issues today. Oh well. These things happen from time to time.
And we must not forget that the Court may read a radically different interpretation into the amendment once it was passed. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the States from it's inception, but years passed before the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that it did little more than grant citizenship to former slaves (which it also intended, but was not limited to). In all honesty, I see a bright future for our country, especially given how well it is performing relative to the European Union. Unfortunately, we have to battle these Constitutional issues today. Oh well. These things happen from time to time.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The Constitution says what the Constitution says. It places no limits on a constitutional convention. This is where the question of exactly what the preceding states voted on comes to the fore. If several called for a con con to amend the provisions for electing the Congress, while others proposed a con con for the purpose of amending provisions relating to taxes, and yet another bunch proposed a con con for the purpose of changing who is considered a citizen at birth, then we have one of two (or maybe more) possible scenarios:cannonfire said:Or, as Alexander Hamilton (or other loose-constructionists) would say that the Constitution doesn't say that you can't have a limited convention.The Constitution doesn't say anything about limiting the scope of what a convention might consider.
- There is no valid call because not all the states want it for the same reason; or
- Once 2/3 call for a convention, everything is on the table regardless of why the convention was called
Let's break Article V down into its component clauses:
The above, are the only 2 methods by which the Constitution may be lawfully changed. There are basically 2 legal theories that are prominent in todays thinking.
The first being that the Constitution itself grants leave to be changed by amending it, by one of two methods. This is supported by the following statements within Article V:
You will notice that ratification, is made by either the State Legislatures or by the people in State Conventions (which can be as simple as a popular vote), as ordered by the Congress. In essence, it is not the people directly that ratify an amendment but by the States, by one of the 2 methods above, as directed by the Congress.
The essence of this first legal theory is that only amendments may be proposed, as the Constitution itself is protected from complete obliteration by its own language. There is therefore, no danger of destruction of the Constitution, by holding a Constitutional Convention (ConCon).
The second legal theory involves the precedent set by the First (and only) ConCon ever held. To that premise, these scholars hold forth Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation which stated:
The alteration proposed by the ConCon, was to throw out the Articles of Confederation in its entirety, and substitute not only a new government, but a new Constitution.
So, which theory would actually prevail?
As in so many things, the only explanation that survives analysis is that past behavior can be predicative of future behavior.
The arguments over a ConCon, are many and deal not only with the subject matter of the convention itself but in how the actual application and call is made.
Many contend that once a call is made, a State cannot rescind it's call. Naturally, others contend that a State may rescind its call.
Currently, some people have said that 32 States have open Calls for a ConCon (for the purpose of an amendment for a balanced budget). These same people do not recognize that Alabama, Florida and Louisiana have rescinded their call. If a rescission is valid, then only 29 States have called for a ConCon for that specific purpose.
Then there is the case of Nevada. It made the call (for the reasons above), but later, the Nevada House of Representatives "purged" their call, but not the Senate. Is this call still valid?
Other arguments are over the subject matter of a call. Some say that a call must be made with specific subjects made in the application of the call. Others will argue that a blanket application may be made. Others say that any and all applications, that are still open, must be counted. Which, if true, would mean that we are long past the point that Congress should have made the Call.
What I think we can say with authority, is that once a call, by the US Congress, has been made, the Congress plays no further part nor has any power over what transpires.
While I agree with the Supreme Court1 that Article V is not ambiguous in any way, should the Call ever be made, the actual process of a ConCon is fraught with ambiguity. That should be enough to scare anyone.
1 United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “[A]rticle 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. . . . It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or,
on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
or,
on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
The above, are the only 2 methods by which the Constitution may be lawfully changed. There are basically 2 legal theories that are prominent in todays thinking.
The first being that the Constitution itself grants leave to be changed by amending it, by one of two methods. This is supported by the following statements within Article V:
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
You will notice that ratification, is made by either the State Legislatures or by the people in State Conventions (which can be as simple as a popular vote), as ordered by the Congress. In essence, it is not the people directly that ratify an amendment but by the States, by one of the 2 methods above, as directed by the Congress.
The essence of this first legal theory is that only amendments may be proposed, as the Constitution itself is protected from complete obliteration by its own language. There is therefore, no danger of destruction of the Constitution, by holding a Constitutional Convention (ConCon).
The second legal theory involves the precedent set by the First (and only) ConCon ever held. To that premise, these scholars hold forth Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation which stated:
Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwords confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
The alteration proposed by the ConCon, was to throw out the Articles of Confederation in its entirety, and substitute not only a new government, but a new Constitution.
So, which theory would actually prevail?
As in so many things, the only explanation that survives analysis is that past behavior can be predicative of future behavior.
The arguments over a ConCon, are many and deal not only with the subject matter of the convention itself but in how the actual application and call is made.
Many contend that once a call is made, a State cannot rescind it's call. Naturally, others contend that a State may rescind its call.
Currently, some people have said that 32 States have open Calls for a ConCon (for the purpose of an amendment for a balanced budget). These same people do not recognize that Alabama, Florida and Louisiana have rescinded their call. If a rescission is valid, then only 29 States have called for a ConCon for that specific purpose.
Then there is the case of Nevada. It made the call (for the reasons above), but later, the Nevada House of Representatives "purged" their call, but not the Senate. Is this call still valid?
Other arguments are over the subject matter of a call. Some say that a call must be made with specific subjects made in the application of the call. Others will argue that a blanket application may be made. Others say that any and all applications, that are still open, must be counted. Which, if true, would mean that we are long past the point that Congress should have made the Call.
What I think we can say with authority, is that once a call, by the US Congress, has been made, the Congress plays no further part nor has any power over what transpires.
While I agree with the Supreme Court1 that Article V is not ambiguous in any way, should the Call ever be made, the actual process of a ConCon is fraught with ambiguity. That should be enough to scare anyone.
1 United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “[A]rticle 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. . . . It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
Not so sure a call made by a state 100 years ago would not still be valid. The 27th, and last, amendment was submitted to the states in 1789 and was not adopted until 1992.
The approval rating of Congress, in 1992, must have been much higher than today! LOL
But you're right, that is a good example of what we could easily be facing.