> “It’s hard to imagine a topic that couldn’t be smuggled into this convention based on that mission. “
Can you list a few specific examples that could be smuggled?
> “I don’t think Congress, especially a hostile one, would ever consider states rights and control thereof to be a credible “single subject”.”
Can you say where in the Constitution Congress has any say on the subject of the topic, single subject or otherwise?
As betty boop pointed out:
"... I am reasonably certain that not only 34 states, but all 50 states, have "issues" with federal usurpations of their Tenth Amendment retained powers — covering everything from fiscal to healthcare to cultural (e.g., marriage, abortion) to management of public lands issues, etc., etc"
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.
Can you say where in the Constitution Congress has any say on the subject of the topic, single subject or otherwise?
Of course not. The Constitution is silent on the matter, hence all the discussion of the "single subject" legal analysis upthread.
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.
I haven't researched myself but have heard Levin say that information coming out of the original convention was strictly embargoed, as was necessary to get through the tough negotiations without outside political pressure. Can you imagine that happening in today's media climate?