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 revisionBoth sides next revision
documents:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts [2018/03/25 09:16] – Oliver Wolcottdocuments:cosproject:surge:article_6-howthecourts [2018/03/25 12:06] – Oliver Wolcott
Line 4: Line 4:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 {{tag>surge}} {{tag>surge}}
-{{:documents:cosproject:surge:surge-6-1.png?800|}} +{{: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).
-{{:documents:cosproject:surge:surge-6-2.png?800|}} +{{: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