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

To: Hostage; semimojo; Publius; Jacquerie; Alamo-Girl; marron; caww
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.

209 posted on 07/08/2015 11:26:25 AM PDT by betty boop (Science deserves all the love we can give it, but that love should not be blind. — NRte>>te>>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop

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.


211 posted on 07/08/2015 11:36:45 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop

Thank you for your insights, dearest sister in Christ!


233 posted on 07/08/2015 8:50:32 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | 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