Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paleo Conservative

No, in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a referendum could not be used to ratify a constitutional amendment. Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions was sacred.


57 posted on 09/22/2007 5:52:48 PM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: Publius; Congressman Billybob
No, in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a referendum could not be used to ratify a constitutional amendment. Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions was sacred.

So if "Article V's Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions" is "sacred", why shouldn't the language in Article II also be sacred?

Article 2.

Section 1

.............................

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

.............................


61 posted on 09/22/2007 6:00:23 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson