From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:56:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811252328.RAA31856@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:11:57 -0800
> From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
> Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)

> 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.

Which is by definition within the powers of such a convention. Their charter
is to come together in order to build a consensus and create from that a
charter for future operations. The litmus test is whether the states are
willing enough to go along with it to actualy do it. They were so the point
was moot. The states called the convention in order to create new proposals
for government, the convention went back to the states with a proposal, the
states looked it over and voted for it. It's important to remember as well
that the original Constitution had to be ratified by all 13 original states
and not simply 3/4 of them. The choice was unanimous.

> 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.

So, however the bill get's to Congress they must specify a method for the
states to enact. Now the question is how long does Congress get? If Congress
sits around and does nothing can it stall long enough that they can kill the
amendment process by their own internal procedures? There is certainly no
time limit imposed by the Constitution so the implication is that Congress
has to wait until the states decide whether that takes a day or a century.
But at the same token there is no implicit time constraint on Congress
either.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
             Technology cannot make us other than what we are.

                                           James P. Hogan

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------