| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| documents:answers:states_control-convention [2020/02/18 22:39] – Oliver Wolcott | documents:answers:states_control-convention [2020/02/18 22:43] – Oliver Wolcott |
|---|
| Stepping solidly outside the realm of plausibility, Mr. Brown then states that a third method of ratification is possible, where the convention unilaterally scraps the three-fourths ratification requirement and imposes some lower threshold of its own invention. His basis for this claim is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 invented a [[documents:answers:answering_the_john_birch_society_questions_about_article_v_jbsqa#was_the_constitution_illegally_ratified|new method of ratification]] for the Constitution, so an Article V convention today could do the same. | Stepping solidly outside the realm of plausibility, Mr. Brown then states that a third method of ratification is possible, where the convention unilaterally scraps the three-fourths ratification requirement and imposes some lower threshold of its own invention. His basis for this claim is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 invented a [[documents:answers:answering_the_john_birch_society_questions_about_article_v_jbsqa#was_the_constitution_illegally_ratified|new method of ratification]] for the Constitution, so an Article V convention today could do the same. |
| |
| Leaving aside the historical inaccuracies behind this argument, ((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))) it ignores a fundamental difference between the Constitutional Convention and an Article V convention. The Constitutional Convention was not called under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles made no provision for such a convention ((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.)). Rather the Constitutional Convention was called under the reserved sovereign authority of the states. Therefore, it could do anything which the states allowed it to, up to and including choosing a method of ratification for its own proposals. By contrast, an Article V convention is, by definition, called under the authority given in the Constitution. Therefore it is subject to the procedures and forms laid down in the Constitution, like those for ratification. Mr. Brown and other opponents of a convention gloss over this critical distinction, and consequently err in their analysis. | Leaving aside the historical inaccuracies behind this argument, ((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) )) it ignores a fundamental difference between the Constitutional Convention and an Article V convention. The Constitutional Convention was not called under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles made no provision for such a convention ((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.)). Rather the Constitutional Convention was called under the reserved sovereign authority of the states. Therefore, it could do anything which the states allowed it to, up to and including choosing a method of ratification for its own proposals. By contrast, an Article V convention is, by definition, called under the authority given in the Constitution. Therefore it is subject to the procedures and forms laid down in the Constitution, like those for ratification. Mr. Brown and other opponents of a convention gloss over this critical distinction, and consequently err in their analysis. |
| |
| Oddly enough, just a few paragraphs later Mr. Brown undercuts his own argument. According to Mr. Brown, conventions not called under Article V “do not set any precedent for an Article V convention.” Of course, if that were true, he could not rely on the Constitutional Convention as valid precedent for ratification. | Oddly enough, just a few paragraphs later Mr. Brown undercuts his own argument. According to Mr. Brown, conventions not called under Article V “do not set any precedent for an Article V convention.” Of course, if that were true, he could not rely on the Constitutional Convention as valid precedent for ratification. |
