[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800
> From: Todd Larason <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis
> Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our
> history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen. The current
> constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles
> of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under
> procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles.
Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the
express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were
faulty and needed replacement.
Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such
a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the
new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules
under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the
Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and
precedence.
> Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the
> amendments. I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using
> the legislature method.
Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying
their submission and implimentation mechanism?
____________________________________________________________________
Technology cannot make us other than what we are.
James P. Hogan
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------