1998-11-25 - Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)

Header Data

From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Message Hash: a5806892485e115d2c9ddcc766cf5fb4b55fa1ee318206835bd6fe752a3b75ea
Message ID: <199811252312.RAA31545@einstein.ssz.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-11-25 23:36:07 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:36:07 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:36:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811252312.RAA31545@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800
> From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
> Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis

> Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our
> history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen.  The current
> constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles 
> of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under
> procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles.

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.

Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such
a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the
new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules
under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the
Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and
precedence.

> 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?


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
             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 --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------





Thread