documents:cosproject:single-subject_convention
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
documents:cosproject:single-subject_convention [2021/10/01 15:27] – File build by odtplus2dw plugin from fileKelly__Single_Subject_Convention.odt Oliver Wolcott | documents:cosproject:single-subject_convention [2021/10/01 16:01] (current) – Oliver Wolcott | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | <WRAP left round download 50%> |
- | **A Single-Subject Convention** | + | Source: [[https:// |
+ | </ | ||
- | Robert Kelly, J.D.[[# | + | ====== A Single-Subject Convention ====== |
- | Much of the opposition to an Article V convention hinges on fears of a “runaway convention.” Convention opponents frequently argue that a convention is inherently unlimited and once it convenes it cannot be restricted in any way. Historical practice and contemporary scholarship[[# | + | |
+ | Robert Kelly, J.D.((Mr. Kelly is a practicing attorney and a member of the California Bar. He currently serves as General Counsel for Citizens for Self-Governance.)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Much of the opposition to an Article V convention hinges on fears of a “runaway convention.” Convention opponents frequently argue that a convention is inherently unlimited and once it convenes it cannot be restricted in any way. Historical practice and contemporary scholarship((For a detailed examination of the issue in modern scholarship see Michael B. Rappaport, //The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis//, 81 CONST. COMM. 53 (2012), and Michael Stern, //Reopening the Constitutional Road to Reform: Toward a Safeguarded Article V Convention//, | ||
The text of the Constitution itself clearly indicates that a convention can be limited in at least some ways. For instance, a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments.” It is essentially a recommendatory body: it cannot ratify its own proposals. Thus, even an “unlimited” convention is limited in this critical respect, which prevents rash or unpopular amendments from becoming part of the Constitution. | The text of the Constitution itself clearly indicates that a convention can be limited in at least some ways. For instance, a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments.” It is essentially a recommendatory body: it cannot ratify its own proposals. Thus, even an “unlimited” convention is limited in this critical respect, which prevents rash or unpopular amendments from becoming part of the Constitution. | ||
Line 10: | Line 14: | ||
Further, Article V specifies that certain topics are off-limits for a convention (and for Congress) to consider. The last portion of the article takes certain provisions relating to the import of slaves off the table until 1808, and forbids any amendment that deprives the states of equal representation in the Senate. There can be no question that certain topics are off-limits for a convention, since Article V itself imposes those limitations. That states legislatures may further limit the authority of a convention is shown by the historical practice and purpose behind Article V. | Further, Article V specifies that certain topics are off-limits for a convention (and for Congress) to consider. The last portion of the article takes certain provisions relating to the import of slaves off the table until 1808, and forbids any amendment that deprives the states of equal representation in the Senate. There can be no question that certain topics are off-limits for a convention, since Article V itself imposes those limitations. That states legislatures may further limit the authority of a convention is shown by the historical practice and purpose behind Article V. | ||
- | Article V was not written in a vacuum. In the century leading up to the adoption of the Constitution the Founders held at least 32 multi-state conventions.[[# | + | Article V was not written in a vacuum. In the century leading up to the adoption of the Constitution the Founders held at least 32 multi-state conventions.((Robert G. Natelson, // |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | - Mr. Kelly is a practicing attorney and a member of the California Bar. He currently serves as General Counsel for Citizens for Self-Governance. | + | |
- | - For a detailed examination of the issue in modern scholarship see Michael B. Rappaport, //The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis//, 81 CONST. COMM. 53 (2012), andMichael Stern, //Reopening the Constitutional Road to Reform: Toward a Safeguarded Article V Convention//, | + | |
- | - Robert G. Natelson, // | + | |
- | | + | |
- | - //See id.// The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was no exception. //See id.// at 674–79; THE FEDERALIST NO. 40 (James Madison). | + | |
- | Moreover, the purpose of Article V was to give Congress and the state legislatures equal standing to propose amendments to the Constitution.[[# | + | |
- | + | ||
- | The states have understood this throughout most of their history. The vast majority of the 400-plus Article V applications made by the states have been limited | + | |
- | + | ||
- | In short, the text of Article V, the history and purpose behind it, plus Congress’s own inaction, all indicate that an Article V convention can be limited to a particular topic or set of topics. Our Founders knew what they were doing when they voted unanimously to put the convention provision in Article V.[[# | + | |
+ | Moreover, the purpose of Article V was to give Congress and the state legislatures equal standing to propose amendments to the Constitution.((// | ||
+ | DRAFTERS 42 (2 ed. 2014).)) | ||
+ | The states have understood this throughout most of their history. The vast majority of the 400-plus Article V applications made by the states have been limited to a particular subject.((// | ||
- | - //See// 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 629–30 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) [hereinafter “FARRAND’S RECORDS”] (recording | + | In short, the text of Article V, the history and purpose behind it, plus Congress’s own inaction, all indicate that an Article V convention can be limited |
- | - Robert G. Natelson, CONVENTION OF STATES: A COMPENDIUM FOR LAWYERS AND LEGISLATIVE | + | |
- | DRAFTERS 42 (2 ed. 2014). | + | |
- | - //See Interactive State Article V Application Database//, THE ARTICLE V LIBRARY, http:// | + | {{page>:wiki_footer}} |
- | - The information provided in the Article V Library suggests that two-thirds of the states had submitted applications sometime in the early 20th century. //Id.// | + | |
- | - James Madison records the vote on the convention provision as passing “nem. con.” meaning “unanimously” or “without dissent.” 2 FARRAND’S RECORDS, at 630. | + | |
documents/cosproject/single-subject_convention.txt · Last modified: 2021/10/01 16:01 by Oliver Wolcott