documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption [2018/03/26 10:27] – Oliver Wolcott | documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption [2021/06/13 16:19] (current) – Oliver Wolcott | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Obviously, what is needed is a way to trump the Beltway ruling class from without. | Obviously, what is needed is a way to trump the Beltway ruling class from without. | ||
- | Enter Article V, which prescribes the amendment process. Article V establishes the amendment process as a two-phase affair: proposal, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states. The states have no way to ratify that which has not first been pro-posed. From the beginning, the states have re-lied on congressional super-majorities to do the proposing. | + | Enter Article V, which prescribes the amendment process. Article V establishes the amendment process as a two-phase affair: proposal, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states. The states have no way to ratify that which has not first been proposed. From the beginning, the states have re-lied on congressional super-majorities to do the proposing. |
But the Founders knew that Congress would be loath to propose anything that would limit federal power, so they included a way for the states to propose amendments in an ad hoc assembly that Article V styles as “A Convention for Proposing Amendments.” | But the Founders knew that Congress would be loath to propose anything that would limit federal power, so they included a way for the states to propose amendments in an ad hoc assembly that Article V styles as “A Convention for Proposing Amendments.” | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
In 2009, an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for re-search. Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitutional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both. | In 2009, an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for re-search. Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitutional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both. | ||
- | Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Pro-posing | + | Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Proposing |
Quietly, he set to work. | Quietly, he set to work. | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Most importantly, | Most importantly, | ||
- | Natelson’s research trove smashed the conspiracy theories of the 1980s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers. When the history is written, it will record that this was the mo-ment | + | Natelson’s research trove smashed the conspiracy theories of the 1980s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers. When the history is written, it will record that this was the moment |
The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past. Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched. | The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past. Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched. |
documents/cosproject/surge/article_10-finalconstitutionaloption.1522074451.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/03/26 10:27 by Oliver Wolcott