From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:48:02 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811252312.RAA31545@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <19981125151157.B9497@molehill.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 981125, Jim Choate wrote:
> Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the
> express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were
> faulty and needed replacement.

But that wasn't the goal, at least not the stated goal.  The Convention
was called under the procedures specified in the Articles.  The Convention
itself decided to change the rules for ratification.

> > Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the
> > amendments.  I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using
> > the legislature method.
> 
> Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying
> their submission and implimentation mechanism?

Congress specified in both (all) cases.  For the original prohibition
amendment, they submitted it to state legislatures.  For the repeal amendment, 
they submitted it to state conventions.