None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
As I said in my last post, I understand that the ratification (the last step) will be done by either state legislatures or conventions. However, there is no doubt in my mind that they will do exactly what their parties tell them to do.
The part that is not clear is what, exactly, would be up for ratification.
The way I understand it..
1.) The state legislatures apply for an amendment convention. - Do they all have to have the same amendment subject? How specific does the subject need to be? Do they all have to have the exact same language?
For example lets say Ohio's application says the amendment is to limit spending. Kentucky's is to limit debt. Florida's is to protect future generations from unfunded liabilities.
Another scenario...
Ohio's is to abolish the IRS. Kentucy's is to repeal the 16th amendment. Florida's is to enact the fair tax.
Are these the same thing? Who determines whether they are or aren't?
2.) Congress calls for the convention. - see my above questions regarding whether Congress is actually compelled to do it or if they may say "No, these applications aren't right".
3.) There is a national convention where the final language of the amendment is hashed out and approved. - Who is sent to this convention? Can the convention propose more amendments than what were originally applied for? How different can the final wording of the Amendment be from what was on the applications?
I may be wrong in my understanding of this step as I can not find much information on the actual process of the convention itself. That may be because there has never been one.
4.) Then is the ratification process by the partisan state legislatures.
It is great the fas.org is thinking about this and offering their inputs. I may agree with all of it, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Do you think Barbara Boxer or Elijah Cummings agrees with Mr. Neale's assessment of the Article V process?
Let me ask you, what is easier to understand, more direct and clear cut....Article V or the 10th Amendment? How about the 2nd Amendment?
If there are dozens of different ways to get around the 10th and 2nd Amendments how many more ways will there be to subvert Article V?
From page 14 of the fas.org paper...
Beyond its simple mandate, the Constitution is mute on the details of enabling procedure, which would necessarily involve a broad range of actions within the legislatures, while also posing significant questions of procedure in the states.
I wonder who would be asked to answer these difficult questions? Who do you think is more likely, the law firm of Obama, Boehner and Roberts or Mr. Levin?
> “As far as I know, there is not a precedent. There has never been an Article V Amendment convention. From the second paragraph in your second link...”
> “None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.”
There were 30+ states that applied for a convention regarding the 17th Amendment. The states were just about there when Congress decided to take it over and propose it themselves.
That’s why I say do not allow Congress to hijack the convention process because then they will control the amendment language.
There have also been other amendments such as the balanced budget amendment that came close to the number needed for establishing a convention. Throughout US history there have been hundreds of applications and a only a few have approached a level of seriousness that could go the distance.
The reason it is serious now is because of so many red state under control of conservative legislatures that can circumvent Congress. For example, 38 states have laws or amendments defining traditional marriage. That’s enough to ratify a marriage amendment.
> “1.) The state legislatures apply for an amendment convention. - Do they all have to have the same amendment subject? “
No, they don’t need to have the same amendments ab initio. The states merely apply for a convention to propose amendments. Once there is established convention status, delegates are appointed by the state legislatures to propose amendments. The state legislatures then vote on which amendments they wish to sponsor.
> “2.) Congress calls for the convention. - see my above questions regarding whether Congress is actually compelled to do it or if they may say “No, these applications aren’t right”.”
You didn’t read how OFR and NARA faclitate the process.
Congress must ‘memorialize’ the convention and it will be through NARA/OFR independent of Congress.
The whole purpose of including state legislatures in Article 5 is to circumvent Congress when the voters are frustrated. When a serious convention process is initiated, watch Congress get involved and say “Ok Ok we see you’re serious, we’ll take it from here”. But the states are not required to let Congress have the ball. Don’t let Congress take it over because then they control the amendment language.
> “3.) There is a national convention where the final language of the amendment is hashed out and approved. - Who is sent to this convention? Can the convention propose more amendments than what were originally applied for? How different can the final wording of the Amendment be from what was on the applications?”
There is not necessarily a national convention. There may be state legislature committees that reconcile language but the rules of drafting and approving proposals are obviously left to the state legislature coordinators who are likely selected state legislators or hired consultants. Whatever the final language, the final amendment proposal is given to the Director of the OFR who then certifies that 34 states have adopted the amendment proposal. OFR seeks an order from Congress whether the amendment proposals shall be ratified via state legislatures or via state conventions. OFR then presents the amendment to each state governor for presentation to the respective legislature or to the Secretary of State for a special election of delegates to a state convention.
It’s really not complicated and is very much in line or similar with the type of business that states do every year in terms of legislation or coordinating legislation with neighboring states in the sense of choosing delegates and commissioning persons to coordinate language.
The reason we haven’t seen it before is because Congress has stepped in at the last moment to offer to take it through Congress instead of a convention process.
Another reason is because the greed factor has never been higher in Washington, whereas once elected members of Congress put the needs of the country ahead of all else, it has become a ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset that engulfs Washington. In other words, in previous generations there was a level of trust to let Congress do the job of proposing amendments.
Yet another factor is that Congress has had carte blanche via the Federal Reserve to get whatever funds they deem necessary independent of the taxpayer, i.e. the taxpaying public has been marginalized so that the ruling class need not pay attention to the country class. Whereas in previous generations the voters mattered more and there wasn’t so much of an issue that Congress ignored the voters as they do now. Do we see people rioting in the streets demanding immigration reform? Did we see them riot over Obamacare or gun control? Yet these acts or sentiments by Congress were or are being stuffed down the throats of voters.