Differences

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

--- documents:cosproject:cos_handbook [2015/12/17 20:14] – Oliver Wolcott
+++ documents:cosproject:cos_handbook [2016/01/25 10:11] – Oliver Wolcott
@@ Line 227: / Line 227: @@
 Here are the facts:
-**1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge.** There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states on a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. See Professor Robert G. Natelson's handbook here: http://www.alec.org/publications/ article-v-handbook . Also see his essay on page 19.
+**1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge.** There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states on a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. See Professor Robert G. Natelson's handbook here: http://www.alec.org/publications/article-v-handbook . Also see his essay on page 19.
 **2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. **It only takes 13 states to vote "no" to defeat any proposed amendment. The chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
@@ Line 271: / Line 271: @@
 To call a Convention of States, 34 state legislatures must pass applications on the same subject matter. Governors play no official role in this process. A simple majority rule applies unless the state legislature has adopted prior rules requiring a different number.
-"Aggregation" is the most important issue for legislators to consider. Will one state's application be counted toward the required 34-state majority, or will it be considered distinct from those of other states? The great variety of applications for a proposed balanced budget amendment demonstrates the problem. Most legal scholars believe that a handful of the existing applications will be considered sufficiently distinct to deny aggregation status in a final count. The best plan is for state legislatures to adopt applications with operative language that is identical or as close to identical as possible. CSG's model application is contained in the Appendix on page 16. This model application was drafted in consultation with a wide range of constitutional scholars, legislators, and citizen activists.
+"Aggregation" is the most important issue for legislators to consider. Will one state's application be counted toward the required 34-state majority, or will it be considered distinct from those of other states? The great variety of applications for a proposed balanced budget amendment demonstrates the problem. Most legal scholars believe that a handful of the existing applications will be considered sufficiently distinct to deny aggregation status in a final count. The best plan is for state legislatures to adopt applications with operative language that is identical or as close to identical as possible. [[documents:cosproject:cosapplication|CSG's model application]] is contained in the Appendix on page 16. This model application was drafted in consultation with a wide range of constitutional scholars, legislators, and citizen activists.
 ---------------------------