1998-11-26 - Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)

Header Data

From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Message Hash: 835ecb39ecf6fa70fe07cf39173fc3d39065fdb1b24dc2b180ad3b8518b89bc3
Message ID: <19981125153435.C9497@molehill.org>
Reply To: <199811252328.RAA31856@einstein.ssz.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-11-26 00:09:17 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:09:17 +0800

Raw message

From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:09:17 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811252328.RAA31856@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <19981125153435.C9497@molehill.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 981125, Jim Choate wrote:
> > > Why is this problematic? 

Whether it's problematic or not depends on your goals.  It gives reason to
doubt that your interpretation of the effects of a Convention called under the 
current constitution would hold, as (as you now say), such a Convention
has the power to change the rules by definition.
 
>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.

It didn't have to be:

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be 
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States 
so ratifying the same.


There was a time period (I don't know how long, but certainly no more than
a few months) where some states were operating underthe Constitution and
others were still under the Acts.

> 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? 

I don't think it specifies, but what has always happened is that the *same
resolution* which proposes the amendment specifies which ratification method
will be used.

> 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's only a time limit because Congress has started specifying one, in the
same resolution which proposes the amendment and specifies the ratification
method.  (Exception: in the case of the ERA, I believe they later extended the
limit).  The power to specify a time limit isn't mentioned in the Constitution 
as you note, but has also never been tested.
-- 
ICQ UIN: 45940202





Thread