Posted on 07/01/2015 3:56:31 PM PDT by betty boop
Natelson discusses the secrecy issue in his article, "State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters":
SecrecyEverybody was sworn to secrecy at the 1787 Convention. Natelson cites other examples of conventions adopting secrecy rules. So, as a matter of precedent, it is "doable." However, as Natelson notes, in the current climate, a secret convention would likely not be acceptable to the public.
Those conventions addressing the issue appear to have applied a rule of secrecy. A principal purpose was to allow commissioners to think aloud, debate freely, and change their minds without losing face. For example, the rules of the First Continental Congress provided that “the doors be kept shut during the time of business, and that the members consider themselves under the strongest obligations of honour, to keep the proceedings secret, untill [sic] the majority shall direct them to be made public.” The 1861 Washington Conference Convention prescribed that “[t]he yeas and nays of the members shall not be given or published—only the decision by States.”
Similarly, the rules of both the Constitutional and Washington Conference Conventions specified that “no copy be taken of any entry on the journal during the sitting of the House without leave of the House,” and that “members only be permitted to inspect the journal.” The rules of the Constitution Convention admonished that “nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published or communicated without leave.”
Our advisors were unanimous in believing that such secrecy would not be publicly acceptable today....
Too bad. If the proceedings were to be public, I'd expect to see a lot of windy grandstanding from the commissioners....
> “You’re assuming the consequent that focusing on “States Rights and Control of States Rights” means limiting federal power. It could just as easily mean limiting states rights.”
Possible point but implausible. To think that the States will convene to limit their rights is not going to gain traction anywhere. Think you need to move yourself over to the reality side of the discussion.
> “I don’t have a particular one in mind but it doesn’t take much imagination. How about explicitly expanding the Commerce Clause to encroach on things like state gun laws as has been tried by the left in the past?”
If the left could use a Convention of States as a vehicle to do such a thing they would have already a long time ago. The reality is they are vastly outnumbered in the Article V arena. Such an amendment idea again falls off the reality platform.
> “’m not going to rummage through a bunch of old podcasts but Wikipedia says:
Fair enough but the issue is not a salient one and has no bearing to the issues above.
So far you’ve suggested that States will convene to limit their rights, move control of their rights to the federal government and expand the Commerce Clause to restrict gun rights. In light of the fact that conservatives control 66 of 99 state legislative chambers I think you will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that your views are realistic.
In the past I have counseled people with exaggerated fears that it is possible for them to dream up all sorts of monsters in the attic but then there is reality and facts which are stubborn things.
I’m sticking with ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’ as the single topic mission statement for the States to rally around.
I've suggested no such thing and you're disingenuously misstating my position.
My points about what could happen were hypothetical and to illustrate the sloppiness of the "states rights" subject as a stated topic for the convention.
You may think it's unrealistic that the left in each of the 50 states as well as the other entrenched powers will try to corrupt this process, but I think your're wrong. As someone once said,
"... there is reality and facts which are stubborn things."
your’re=you’re
My understanding is Congress has no role, no discretion in determining "credibility." If 34 States apply using uniform language re: "States Rights and Control of States Rights," Congress MUST "call" a Convention of the States for Proposing Amendments.
Of course, one would expect Congress to be hostile to any proposal that would limit their own power.
...[S]ome delegates—notably George Mason of Virginia—pointed out that Congress might become abusive or exceed its powers. It might therefore refuse to adopt a necessary or desirable amendment, particularly one designed to curb its own authority. Accordingly, the Framers added [to Article V] the convention for proposing amendments as a vehicle for the states to present corrective amendments for ratification while bypassing Congress. — Natelson, p. 29. Emphasis added.Congress has no role in determining subject matter or any procedural matters; e.g., voting rules, qualifications of commissioners, size of State delegations, etc., etc. And no discretion as to its duty to "call" once 34 State Applications on the same subject matter has been reached.
Part of the discussion on this thread is whether a single subject convention is required or desirable. My point is that "States Rights and Control of States Rights" is so broad a topic that Congress would, or should, never consider it a single subject.
If we decide that a single subject isn't important or enforceable by Congress, then why have a subject at all?
I gave you plenty of opportunity to put forward examples where as you said the mission topic could be used to limit states rights and move control of states rights to the federal government.
Your remarks and examples are unrealistic. You will have difficulty convincing anyone that more than 34 states will convene to restrict their own rights, move control of their rights to the federal government and possibly propose an amendment to expand the power of the Commerce Clause to encroach on gun rights.
> “You may think it’s unrealistic that the left in each of the 50 states as well as the other entrenched powers will ***try*** to corrupt this process, but I think your’re wrong.”
The left can ***try*** anything. There’s no argument that the left can ***try*** to corrupt anything. That’s not what we’re talking about here otherwise it’s fear mongering leading to dreaming up neverending nightmares of monsters in the attic. That’s not useful to these discussions.
You posit that the left will ***try*** to do whatever, and then you attack people for something which they did not do and which is not an argument. Of course the left can ***try*** anything. To say that the left can try to corrupt anything is a tautology. There’s no sensible argument against a tautology so don’t accuse people of doing that. I have no argument that the left will ***try*** to corrupt anything, I just don’t believe that your points and example could ever be ***accomplished*** by the left.
Put some reality into your assertions and describe not what the left will ***try*** to do but how they can reasonably be expected to ***accomplish*** what they try to do. You mentioned they will use the Convention of States to expand the reach of the Commerce Clause to effect gun rights under the mission of ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’. Put forth a concise lawyerly procedure of specifically how they would do such a thing? How would they persuade at least 34 state legislatures to do such a thing?
> “If we decide that a single subject isn’t important or enforceable by Congress, then why have a subject at all? “
Who is asking Congress to judge importance of subject matter or to consider enforcing subject matter?
Indeed, Hostage. Article V denies Congress any role in either instance.
Under Article V, WRT a convention of the states, Congress is not acting as a legislature, let alone a judge. Its function, as Prof. Natelson points out, is strictly ministerial, acting for the benefit of the State legislatures, not the federal government or its own institutional interests.
BTW, Hostage, I agree with you that "States' Rights and the Control of States' Rights" qualifies as a "single subject." The second part – "control" — is not a different, separate topic, but is logically incidental to the first part — "States' rights."
I'm trying to follow semimojo's reasoning, and may not have gotten it right. (Correct me please if this is not the case!) It seems he equates the input — "single subject" — with an "output" — which can only be a single proposed amendment.
But if the subject matter is States' rights and the powers incidental to effecting it ("control"), then a Convention of the States for the Proposal of Amendments organized around this subject matter conceivably could elicit multiple proposals. Every proposal would be subject to vote by the state delegations (assuming a quorum exists) on a one-vote/one-state basis. A simple majority would carry the proposal; and if carried, that proposal would become eligible as a proposed amendment, on a stand-alone basis.
So a "single subject" isn't necessarily restricted to a single proposed amendment.
At least, that is my understanding, based on Prof. Natelson's splendid analysis.
Certainly, semimojo would have incredible difficulty persuading or convincing me of this. It is complete nonsense.
Yes you have it right with respect to Professor Natelson who has created a great guideline document.
I see the poster semimojo as trying to stir fears that the mission of the Convention delegates will somehow be hijacked because is it broad enough to create amendments that will diminish States Rights and mover more control of States Rights over to the Federal Government. He said the mission is so ‘broad’ that something can slip through to effect such things. I asked him for examples and they were wholly unrealistic.
Well, fine. But semimojo needs to ask himself a question: WHY would the several states apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, the effect of which would only further enslave them to the federal authority???
The Article V COS is designed to be a "push back" of the States vis-a-vis the overreach of federal authority at the expense of the States, by providing the States with a means of doing an end-run around Congress altogether.
WHY would the States apply for a convention that would further reduce their own powers and authority? That's just nutz.
Nice try. I didn't say that.
Can you address what I *did* say?
No one that I know of is suggesting that. Let me help. Congress determining whether a petition addresses a single subject is different than congress judging the importance of whatever that subject may be.
Fear not, I wouldn't try to defend this proposition. It's strictly the province of straw men.
> “Nice try. I didn’t say that.”
Yes, you did.
> “Can you address what I *did* say?”
No, I won’t do that because it’s all here in your posts:
#195______________________________________________
It’s hard to imagine a topic that couldn’t be smuggled into this convention based on that mission. There are plenty of voices who would like to ***diminish states rights***, and as you state later in your post everything from fiscal matters to healthcare to land use to culture would be on the table.
#197______________________________________________
the list is long, and the flip side of any argument to limit federal authority is an argument to ***move more control from the states to the fed***.
I’m well aware of the other safeguards in the Article V process that would serve to prevent such amendments from being adopted, but they could certainly ***come in under the open ended “states rights” topic***. I’m pointing out that the “mission” could be a double-edged sword.
My main point is that I think entering into a convention with such a ***broad mandate and without specific amendment proposals is doomed to fail***. I don’t see how pushing the sausage-making into such a high-profile, high-pressure setting could possibly work in today’s world.
#200______________________________________________
You’re assuming the consequent that focusing on “States Rights and Control of States Rights” means limiting federal power. It could just as ***easily mean limiting states rights***.
I don’t have a particular one in mind but it doesn’t take much imagination. How about explicitly ***expanding the Commerce Clause to encroach on things like state gun laws*** as has been tried by the left in the past?
> “ Congress determining whether a petition addresses a single subject is different than congress judging the importance of whatever that subject may be.”
Again, who is asking Congress to determine or judge anything here? Congress is not authorized to determine or judge anything here.
But you keep making statements that Congress is somehow involved in determining and judging matters of an Article V Convention. This is not contributing anything of value to this thread.
I don't think any such amendments would be successful and of course haven't argued that they would be.
If we have a convention with only a fuzzy notion of states rights as the topic nothing will be accomplished. The hard work of getting agreement on the details of amendments won't happen at a big meeting with delegations from 50 states, each coming in with their own ideas of what the amendments should be.
Do you really think that deals are actually negotiated at international summit meetings? Of course not. The hard work is done in advance and the summit is ceremonial. This isn't complicated - it's basic organizational behavior and blocking & tackling.
Thanks for reinforcing the point that my arguments were hypothetical.
Your reasoning is circular semimojo.
You had more than your 15 minutes by virtue of the fact that people of all backgrounds. knowledge levels, experiences are entering and leaving FR threads by the hundreds every hour, and it was for their benefit that the questioning has been drawn out for as long as it has so that they can see how a poster such as yourself is given an opportunity to make a contribution and when challenged resorts to denial, evasion and admission as to a lack of facts.
I will give you credit that you did not resort to ad hominem attacks when pressed to defend your statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.