documents:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
documents:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts [2018/03/24 17:01] – Oliver Wolcott | documents:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts [2018/03/25 12:06] – Oliver Wolcott | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
</ | </ | ||
{{tag> | {{tag> | ||
- | {{article_6-howthecourts_Image_0.png}} | + | {{: |
- | < | + | |
- | One source of security we have... is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the [amendment] procedure. | + | ---- |
- | </blockquote> | + | |
+ | //One source of security we have... is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the [amendment] procedure.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
===== How the Courts have Clarified the Constitution’s Amendment Process ===== | ===== How the Courts have Clarified the Constitution’s Amendment Process ===== | ||
**Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center** | **Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center** | ||
Line 18: | Line 22: | ||
* Article V grants enumerated powers to named assemblies—that is, to Congress, state legislatures, | * Article V grants enumerated powers to named assemblies—that is, to Congress, state legislatures, | ||
+ | |||
* Article V gives authority to named assemblies, without participation by the executive. // | * Article V gives authority to named assemblies, without participation by the executive. // | ||
+ | |||
* Where the language of Article V is clear, it must be enforced as written. // | * Where the language of Article V is clear, it must be enforced as written. // | ||
+ | |||
* That does not mean, as some have claimed, that judges may never go beyond reading the words and guessing what they signify. Rather, a court may consider the history underlying Article V. //Dyer v. Blair, //390F. Supp.1291(N.D. Ill.1975) (Justice Stevens). It may also consider what is implied as well as what is expressed. //Dillon v. Gloss,//256 U.S. 368 (1921). In other words, courts apply the same rules of interpretation to Article V as elsewhere. | * That does not mean, as some have claimed, that judges may never go beyond reading the words and guessing what they signify. Rather, a court may consider the history underlying Article V. //Dyer v. Blair, //390F. Supp.1291(N.D. Ill.1975) (Justice Stevens). It may also consider what is implied as well as what is expressed. //Dillon v. Gloss,//256 U.S. 368 (1921). In other words, courts apply the same rules of interpretation to Article V as elsewhere. | ||
+ | |||
* Just as other enumerated powers in the Constitution bring with them certain incidental authority, so also do the powers enumerated in Article V. //State ex rel.//// | * Just as other enumerated powers in the Constitution bring with them certain incidental authority, so also do the powers enumerated in Article V. //State ex rel.//// | ||
+ | |||
* The two - thirds vote required in Congress for proposing amendments is two thirds of a quorum present and voting, not of the entire membership. //State of Rhode Island v. Palmer//, 253 U.S. 320 (1920). | * The two - thirds vote required in Congress for proposing amendments is two thirds of a quorum present and voting, not of the entire membership. //State of Rhode Island v. Palmer//, 253 U.S. 320 (1920). | ||
- | {{article_6-howthecourts_Image_2.png}} | + | {{: |
- | < | + | |
- | The courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries. | + | ---- |
- | </blockquote> | + | |
+ | //The courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
* A convention for proposing amendments is, like all of its predecessors, | * A convention for proposing amendments is, like all of its predecessors, | ||
+ | |||
* No legislature or convention has power to alter the ratification procedure. That is fixed by Article V. //Hawke v. Smith,// | * No legislature or convention has power to alter the ratification procedure. That is fixed by Article V. //Hawke v. Smith,// | ||
+ | |||
* Congress may not try to manipulate the ratification procedure, other than by choosing one of two specified “modes of ratification.” //Idaho v. Freeman,// | * Congress may not try to manipulate the ratification procedure, other than by choosing one of two specified “modes of ratification.” //Idaho v. Freeman,// | ||
+ | |||
* A convention meeting under Article V may be limited to its purpose. //In Re//// | * A convention meeting under Article V may be limited to its purpose. //In Re//// | ||
+ | |||
* But an outside body may not dictate an Article V assembly’s rules and procedures. //Leser v. Garnett, //258 U.S. 130 (1922);// Dyer v. Blair, //390F. Supp.1291(N.D. Ill.1975) (Justice Stevens). | * But an outside body may not dictate an Article V assembly’s rules and procedures. //Leser v. Garnett, //258 U.S. 130 (1922);// Dyer v. Blair, //390F. Supp.1291(N.D. Ill.1975) (Justice Stevens). | ||
+ | |||
* Nor may the assembly be compelled to resolve the issue presented to it in a particular way. //State ex rel. Harper v. Waltermire//, | * Nor may the assembly be compelled to resolve the issue presented to it in a particular way. //State ex rel. Harper v. Waltermire//, | ||
+ | |||
* Article V functions are complete when a convention or legislature has acted. There is no need for other officials to pro-claim the action. //United States ex rel. Widenmann v. Colby, //265 F.398(D.C. Cir. 1920), affirmed 257 U.S. 619 (1921). | * Article V functions are complete when a convention or legislature has acted. There is no need for other officials to pro-claim the action. //United States ex rel. Widenmann v. Colby, //265 F.398(D.C. Cir. 1920), affirmed 257 U.S. 619 (1921). | ||
documents/cosproject/surge/article_6-howthecourts.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:14 by 127.0.0.1