From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:18:25 +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: <3.0.5.32.19981127000007.008f8af0@idiom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 03:34 PM 11/25/98 -0800, Todd Larason wrote:
>On 981125, Jim Choate wrote:
>> 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.

The most recent amendment (27th?) sat around for nearly 200 years
before 3/4 of the states ratified it,  (preventing Congress from 
raising their salaries during their current term.)  
The power to specify a time limit doesn't need separate mention; 
the time limit is either part of the proposed amendment, or it isn't, 
and it's part of the negotiations for getting Congress to pass it.

The more dangerous problem is that people keep suggesting a 
Constitutional Convention, which has basically no limits on its scope
(especially given the one previous precedent, which substantially
increased Federal power beyond the limits of the Articles,
and didn't require unanimous consent to adopt its product,
though the Articles required it for changing them.)
Even if the states _say_ they're limiting their delegation to
specific tasks, that doesn't mean the ConCon won't exceed them,
and if it gets sufficient media/public support, it can get away with it.

Don't expect the 2nd, 9th, or 10th amendments to survive a ConCon at all,
or the 1st to have any meaning resembling its current limited one,
or the 4th or 5th to get by without "except for drugs or other
politically incorrect substances" attached to it, or the 
definitions of rights or powers to resemble what you want.

(There have been some Libertarian proposals to add
"and this time we mean it" to the end of the 9th and 10th,
or to add a period after the 1st's "Congress shall make no law",
but they're not in keeping with the spirit of the age :-)

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639