User Tools

Site Tools


documents:cosproject:cos_handbook

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
documents:cosproject:cos_handbook [2015/12/27 16:06] – [Action Steps for Legislators] Oliver Wolcottdocuments:cosproject:cos_handbook [2016/08/01 16:06] Oliver Wolcott
Line 42: Line 42:
  
 [[documents:cosproject:cos_handbook#founding-era_conventions|Excerpts from "Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution's 'Convention for Proposing Amendments']]\\  [[documents:cosproject:cos_handbook#founding-era_conventions|Excerpts from "Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution's 'Convention for Proposing Amendments']]\\ 
-  by Professor Robert G. Natelson\\ +  by Professor Robert G. Natelson
  
 ----------------------- -----------------------
Line 227: Line 227:
 Here are the facts: 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. **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.
documents/cosproject/cos_handbook.txt · Last modified: 2022/01/01 11:53 by Oliver Wolcott