> “and the flip side of any argument to limit federal authority is an argument to move more control from the states to the fed.”
How would limiting federal authority by focusing on states rights and control of states rights move control from the states to the federal government?
> “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.
What amendments are you referring to? Can you give examples?
> “”I’m pointing out that the “mission” could be a double-edged sword.”
Let’s see you put forth some examples first before jumping to that conclusion.
> “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.”
I have never heard Levin say or suggest that an Article V Convention of States should be secret nor have I ever heard him refer to secrecy in the original Constitutional Convention. Can you provide references to what you are saying?
Here’s an idea. When a state applies for a convention, in addition to listing the topic, it should list all the other states that have applied for the same topic up to that point. That would prevent Congress from tallying the application in the wrong column under the excuse of different wording.
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.
What amendments are you referring to? Can you give examples?
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?
I have never heard Levin say or suggest that an Article V Convention of States should be secret nor have I ever heard him refer to secrecy in the original Constitutional Convention. Can you provide references to what you are saying?
I'm not going to rummage through a bunch of old podcasts but Wikipedia says:
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....