Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)

[Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>]

On 981125, Jim Choate wrote:
> > > Why is this problematic? 

Whether it's problematic or not depends on your goals.  It gives reason to
doubt that your interpretation of the effects of a Convention called under the 
current constitution would hold, as (as you now say), such a Convention
has the power to change the rules by definition.
 
>It's important to remember as well
> that the original Constitution had to be ratified by all 13 original states
> and not simply 3/4 of them. The choice was unanimous.

It didn't have to be:

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be 
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States 
so ratifying the same.


There was a time period (I don't know how long, but certainly no more than
a few months) where some states were operating underthe Constitution and
others were still under the Acts.

> So, however the bill get's to Congress they must specify a method for the
> states to enact. Now the question is how long does Congress get? 

I don't think it specifies, but what has always happened is that the *same
resolution* which proposes the amendment specifies which ratification method
will be used.

> If Congress
> sits around and does nothing can it stall long enough that they can kill the
> amendment process by their own internal procedures? 

There's only a time limit because Congress has started specifying one, in the
same resolution which proposes the amendment and specifies the ratification
method.  (Exception: in the case of the ERA, I believe they later extended the
limit).  The power to specify a time limit isn't mentioned in the Constitution 
as you note, but has also never been tested.
-- 
ICQ UIN: 45940202