Convention of States

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: index » documents » cosproject » surge » article_6-howthecourts
documents:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts

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:surge:article_6-howthecourts [2018/03/24 17:03] – Oliver Wolcottdocuments:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts [2018/03/25 12:06] – Oliver Wolcott
Line 4: Line 4:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 {{tag>surge}} {{tag>surge}}
-{{article_6-howthecourts_Image_0.png}} +{{:documents:cosproject:surge:surge-6-1.png?800|One source of security we have... is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the [amendment] procedure.}} 
-<blockquote> + 
-One source of security we have... is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the [amendment] procedure. +---- 
-</blockquote>+ 
 +//One source of security we have... is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the [amendment] procedure.// 
 + 
 +---- 
 ===== How the Courts have Clarified the Constitution’s Amendment Process ===== ===== How the Courts have Clarified the Constitution’s Amendment Process =====
 **Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center** **Robert Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence and Head of the Institute’s Article V Information Center**
Line 28: Line 32:
  
   * The two - thirds vote required in Congress for proposing amendments is two thirds of a quorum present and voting, not of the entire membership. //State of Rhode Island v. Palmer//, 253 U.S. 320 (1920).   * The two - thirds vote required in Congress for proposing amendments is two thirds of a quorum present and voting, not of the entire membership. //State of Rhode Island v. Palmer//, 253 U.S. 320 (1920).
-{{article_6-howthecourts_Image_2.png}} +{{:documents:cosproject:surge:surge-6-2.png?800|The courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries.}} 
-<blockquote> + 
-The courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries. +---- 
-</blockquote>+ 
 +//The courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries.// 
 + 
 +---- 
   * A convention for proposing amendments is, like all of its predecessors, a “convention of the states.” //Smith v. Union////Bank, //30 U.S. 518, 528 (1831). The national government is not concerned with how Article V conventions or state legislatures are constituted. //United States v.////Thibault//,47 F.2d169(2d Cir.1931).   * A convention for proposing amendments is, like all of its predecessors, a “convention of the states.” //Smith v. Union////Bank, //30 U.S. 518, 528 (1831). The national government is not concerned with how Article V conventions or state legislatures are constituted. //United States v.////Thibault//,47 F.2d169(2d Cir.1931).
  
documents/cosproject/surge/article_6-howthecourts.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:14 by 127.0.0.1