Differences

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

--- documents:answers:states_control-convention [2015/11/09 09:14] – Oliver Wolcott
+++ documents:answers:states_control-convention [2015/11/09 09:59] – Oliver Wolcott
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 <BOOKMARK:iv> 4. [[http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/5-Natelson.pdf#page=73|See Natelson, at 687]].
-<BOOKMARK:v> 5. To bolster this claim, Mr. Brown and other opponents of a convention often look to a Congressional Service Report that details these past legislative efforts by Congress. Our staff has addressed the CRS report here: http://conventionofstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CRS-Response.pdf. The bottom line is that the CRS Report is merely a catalog of past and present Article V efforts and Congress’s response. It does not take any position with regard to those efforts. Unfortunately, the Report ignores much of the research that has been done into historical convention practices, and thus gives an incomplete summary of the topic. But even as written the report does little to support the John Birch/Eagle Forum position.
+<BOOKMARK:v> 5. To bolster this claim, Mr. Brown and other opponents of a convention often look to a Congressional Service Report that details these past legislative efforts by Congress. Our staff has addressed the CRS report here: \\
+[[documents:answers:the_crs_report_on_articlev|(Wiki: The CRS Report on Article V]] \\
+and here: \\
+ [[http://conventionofstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CRS-Response.pdf|(PDF) CRS Response]]. \\ The bottom line is that the CRS Report is merely a catalog of past and present Article V efforts and Congress’s response. It does not take any position with regard to those efforts. Unfortunately, the Report ignores much of the research that has been done into historical convention practices, and thus gives an incomplete summary of the topic. But even as written the report does little to support the John Birch/Eagle Forum position.
 <BOOKMARK:vi>6. See, e.g., FL. STAT. § 107.01–107.11; N.M. STAT. ANN. § 1-18-1; VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 17, §§ 1811–1825.
-<BOOKMARK:vii> 7. As constitutional attorney Michael Farris notes, all 13 state legislatures approved the new ratification process for the Constitution, therefore the unanimity requirement of the Articles of Confederation was satisfied. Mr. Farris’s article is available here: \\  [[documents:answers:can_we_trust_the_constitution|Can We Trust the Constituton (Wiki)]]  \\ and here: http://conventionofstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Can-We-Trust-the-Constitution-2.01.pdf.(PDF)
+<BOOKMARK:vii> 7. As constitutional attorney Michael Farris notes, all 13 state legislatures approved the new ratification process for the Constitution, therefore the unanimity requirement of the Articles of Confederation was satisfied. Mr. Farris’s article is available here: \\  [[documents:answers:can_we_trust_the_constitution|(Wiki) Can We Trust the Constituton ]] \\ and here: http://conventionofstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Can-We-Trust-the-Constitution-2.01.pdf.(PDF)
 <BOOKMARK:viii> 8. No provision in the Articles of Confederation says anything about a convention. Moreover, the Articles explicitly disclaimed the idea of implied powers. [[historicaldocuments:articlesofconfederation#art_ii|ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, art. II]]. As the result, the only possible legal basis for the Constitutional Convention and other conventions of the time was the reserved sovereign authority of the states.