Do you think it would be a good idea for the American Bar Association to convene a Constitutional Convention? Does that sound like something that would be helpful?
The American Bar Association cannot convene an Amendments Convention. Only the states can call for such a convention by petitioning Congress. Please read Article V of the Constitution.
Do you wish to alert us to the fact that the Members of the "House of Delegates" of the ABA were thinking about such an undertaking, more than forty years ago?
Forty years ago, we came close to having an Amendments Convention over an attempt by the states to overturn the Supreme Court's "One Man/One Vote" decision. When all the gray areas were identified -- to include whether "One Man/One Vote" even applied to an Amendments Convention -- the ABA decided to research the issue and write a report that could be referenced by Congress in crafting legislation to standardize and regulate the process.
I posted this as a reference guide that could be used in addition to the Natelson paper at ALEC. The ABA and Natelson take different sides on certain issues, and it's helpful to read both sets of arguments.
Back in 1970, momentum was building for the passage of the ERA, or "Equal Rights Amendment" to the Constitution. I suspect that this analysis by the ABA had something to do with that effort, which (as you probably recall) sputtered on into the early '80s. Does the ERA dynamic have something to do with your thinking here?
The ERA had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That was an amendment proposed by Congress; therefore there was no need for a convention to address the issue. The ERA died a well deserved death in 1982.
Perhaps you just like to puzzle and mystify. That's fine, of course.
Did you see either of the two posts this weekend about the seminar on holding an Amendments Convention? If not, then I understand your mystification.
No I did not see them.
Thanks for taking time to explain.
Man, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since Walker v United States. Two years of editing that monster brief. Just to correct the record. It was Walker v Members of Congress that was denied cert. But not before the federal government admitted officially what the terms and conditions of a convention call were, that is what was accurate as to fact and law.
In sum:
(1) that under Article V of the United States Constitution, Congress is required to call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one;
(2) that the Article V Convention call is based on a numeric count of applying states;
(3) that all 50 states have submitted 567 applications for such a convention and therefore a convention call is now obligatory on Congress; [This number has since been revised. It now stands as 49 states, 748 applications]
(4) that an Article V Convention call is peremptory on Congress;
(5) that the political subject matter of an amendment application is irrelevant and does not effect Congress’ obligation to call an Article V Convention;
(6) that the refusal of the members of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and immediately call a convention is a violation of their oath of office as well as a violation of federal criminal law and;
(7) that by joining a lawsuit to advocate in open public court they can ignore, veto, disobey or otherwise thwart a convention call, the members of Congress violated federal criminal law.
Anyway I’m to see all is well with you. I’ll simply mention this for those who want to read the actual applications of the states. You can read them at www.foavc.org