| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| documents:answers:states_control-convention [2015/11/09 09:59] – Oliver Wolcott | documents:answers:states_control-convention [2016/01/18 22:22] – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation Oliver Wolcott |
|---|
| This second mode of ratification, however, hardly excludes the state legislatures. As was the case with the ratification of the [[historicaldocuments:constitution-lateramendments|21st Amendment]], state legislatures will be the bodies deciding how delegates to the state ratification conventions will be selected <sup>[[#vi|(6)]]</sup>. Though state legislatures may not be voting directly on ratification, they will still exert significant influence over the process. | This second mode of ratification, however, hardly excludes the state legislatures. As was the case with the ratification of the [[historicaldocuments:constitution-lateramendments|21st Amendment]], state legislatures will be the bodies deciding how delegates to the state ratification conventions will be selected <sup>[[#vi|(6)]]</sup>. Though state legislatures may not be voting directly on ratification, they will still exert significant influence over the process. |
| |
| Stepping solidly outside the realm of plausibility, Mr. Brown then states that a third method of ratification is possible, where the convention unilaterally scraps the three-fourths ratification requirement and imposes some lower threshold of its own invention. His basis for this claim is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 invented a [[documents:answers:jbsqa#was_the_constitution_illegally_ratified|new method of ratification]] for the Constitution, so an Article V convention today could do the same. | Stepping solidly outside the realm of plausibility, Mr. Brown then states that a third method of ratification is possible, where the convention unilaterally scraps the three-fourths ratification requirement and imposes some lower threshold of its own invention. His basis for this claim is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 invented a [[documents:answers:answering_the_john_birch_society_questions_about_article_v_jbsqa#was_the_constitution_illegally_ratified|new method of ratification]] for the Constitution, so an Article V convention today could do the same. |
| |
| Leaving aside the historical inaccuracies behind this argument, <sup>[[#vii|(7)]]</sup> it ignores a fundamental difference between the Constitutional Convention and an Article V convention. The Constitutional Convention was not called under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles made no provision for such a convention <sup>[[#viii|(8)]]</sup>. Rather the Constitutional Convention was called under the reserved sovereign authority of the states. Therefore, it could do anything which the states allowed it to, up to and including choosing a method of ratification for its own proposals. By contrast, an Article V convention is, by definition, called under the authority given in the Constitution. Therefore it is subject to the procedures and forms laid down in the Constitution, like those for ratification. Mr. Brown and other opponents of a convention gloss over this critical distinction, and consequently err in their analysis. | Leaving aside the historical inaccuracies behind this argument, <sup>[[#vii|(7)]]</sup> it ignores a fundamental difference between the Constitutional Convention and an Article V convention. The Constitutional Convention was not called under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles made no provision for such a convention <sup>[[#viii|(8)]]</sup>. Rather the Constitutional Convention was called under the reserved sovereign authority of the states. Therefore, it could do anything which the states allowed it to, up to and including choosing a method of ratification for its own proposals. By contrast, an Article V convention is, by definition, called under the authority given in the Constitution. Therefore it is subject to the procedures and forms laid down in the Constitution, like those for ratification. Mr. Brown and other opponents of a convention gloss over this critical distinction, and consequently err in their analysis. |
