User Tools

Site Tools


documents:cosproject:cos_handbook

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
documents:cosproject:cos_handbook [2015/12/27 21:06]
Oliver Wolcott [Action Steps for Legislators]
documents:cosproject:cos_handbook [2016/08/01 20:06]
Oliver Wolcott
Line 42: Line 42:
  
 [[documents:​cosproject:​cos_handbook#​founding-era_conventions|Excerpts from "​Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution'​s '​Convention for Proposing Amendments'​]]\\ ​ [[documents:​cosproject:​cos_handbook#​founding-era_conventions|Excerpts from "​Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution'​s '​Convention for Proposing Amendments'​]]\\ ​
-  by Professor Robert G. Natelson\\ +  by Professor Robert G. Natelson
  
 ----------------------- -----------------------
Line 227: Line 227:
 Here are the facts: Here are the facts:
  
-**1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge.** There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states on a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. See Professor Robert G. Natelson'​s handbook here: http://​www.alec.org/​publications/​ article-v-handbook . Also see his essay on page 19.+**1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge.** There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states on a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. See Professor Robert G. Natelson'​s handbook here: http://​www.alec.org/​publications/​article-v-handbook . Also see his essay on page 19.
  
 **2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. **It only takes 13 states to vote "​no"​ to defeat any proposed amendment. The chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero. **2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. **It only takes 13 states to vote "​no"​ to defeat any proposed amendment. The chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
documents/cosproject/cos_handbook.txt · Last modified: 2016/08/01 20:06 by Oliver Wolcott