documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption [2018/03/21 22:42] – Oliver Wolcott | documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption [2018/03/21 22:46] – Oliver Wolcott | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| Before long, Natelson had acquired nearly all of the journals of founding-era conventions. This was added to his existing collection of material from each state’s ratification convention as each considered whether or not to approve the proposed 1787 Constitution. A picture of early American convention tradition began to emerge. | Before long, Natelson had acquired nearly all of the journals of founding-era conventions. This was added to his existing collection of material from each state’s ratification convention as each considered whether or not to approve the proposed 1787 Constitution. A picture of early American convention tradition began to emerge. | ||
| - | Casting a wider net, he pulled in over 40 generally neglected Article V court decisions, some of which had been argued before the Supreme Court. In a series of publications, | + | Casting a wider net, he pulled in over 40 generally neglected Article V court decisions, some of which had been argued before the Supreme Court. In a series of publications, |
| The research quickly became the gold standard of scholarship about the process, known formally as the “State-Application-and-Convention” method of amending the Constitution. | The research quickly became the gold standard of scholarship about the process, known formally as the “State-Application-and-Convention” method of amending the Constitution. | ||
documents/cosproject/surge/article_10-finalconstitutionaloption.txt · Last modified: 2021/06/13 16:19 by Oliver Wolcott