documents:answers:if_congress_refuses_call
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revisionBoth sides next revision | |||
authoring:cospwiki:answers:if_congress_refuses_call [2015/10/26 23:12] – created Oliver Wolcott | authoring:cospwiki:answers:if_congress_refuses_call [2015/10/26 23:24] – Oliver Wolcott | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | [[https:// | + | <WRAP round download 60%> |
- | + | [[https:// | |
+ | </ | ||
======What If Congress Refuses to Call a Convention? | ======What If Congress Refuses to Call a Convention? | ||
- | [[http:// | + | [[http:// |
- | + | ||
- | Some have suggested that Congress might simply refuse to call an Article V Convention of the States, even if it receives 34 applications from state legislatures for a convention. While we agree that Congress is generally disinclined to relinquish its own power (which is precisely why an Article V Convention is necessary), it is a settled matter of constitutional law that Congress must call the Convention upon receipt of the requisite 34 applications on the same subject matter. < | + | |
+ | Some have suggested that Congress might simply refuse to call an Article V Convention of the States, even if it receives 34 applications from state legislatures for a convention. While we agree that Congress is generally disinclined to relinquish its own power (which is precisely why an Article V Convention is necessary), it is a settled matter of constitutional law that Congress must call the Convention upon receipt of the requisite 34 applications on the same subject matter. [[# | ||
We know from the records of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that George Mason insisted that the new Constitution provide state legislatures a power co-equal to that of Congress to propose amendments, and that the Convention delegates unanimously agreed with him. The Founding Fathers thus used mandatory language in describing Congress' | We know from the records of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that George Mason insisted that the new Constitution provide state legislatures a power co-equal to that of Congress to propose amendments, and that the Convention delegates unanimously agreed with him. The Founding Fathers thus used mandatory language in describing Congress' | ||
- | Article V reads, in pertinent part, "The Congress . . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…" | + | [[historicaldocuments: |
- | Alexander Hamilton made it abundantly clear that Congress cannot block an Article V Convention of the States when he wrote, in Federalist 85: | + | Alexander Hamilton made it abundantly clear that Congress cannot block an Article V Convention of the States when he wrote, in [[historicaldocuments: |
[T]he national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments which //shall be valid//, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, | [T]he national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments which //shall be valid//, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, | ||
Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
- | 1. See generally, Robert G. Natelson, " | + | < |
- | 2. Roberts v. United States, 176 U.S. 221, 230 (1900); see also Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (issuing a declaratory judgment to reinstate an improperly evicted member of Congress); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (rejecting state' | + | < |
documents/answers/if_congress_refuses_call.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:14 by 127.0.0.1