[alstewartfan]

Very interesting. But this doesn’t excuse the activist nut Warren Burger, of course. Bob

[Vaquero]

I don’t trust lawyers and politicians of any party to have a constitutional convention. And as the left lies cheats and steals elections on a regular basis a constitutional convention will be a fun challenge for the Saul Alinsky crowd. And the do nothing republicans will just throw their hands up as they are professional losers.

Look before you leap.

[rellimpank]

—whenever the name of Warren Burger is mentioned , I recall that the real reason that Nixon appointed him was supposedly that “he looked like a chief justice should”——

[nathanbedford]

Asserting that “only a federal agency (Congress, as provided by the Constitution) is competent to propose” amendments, he claimed that the convention procedure should be disregarded as “no longer of any effect.” Thus, Swindler suggested that if the requisite number of state applications was reached, Congress should simply ignore its duty to call a convention. Alternatively, Swindler wrote, Congress could gerrymander the convention and/or prescribe rules that would render its operation impossible. For example, he suggested that Congress mandate a rule that convention delegates were not permitted to propose any amendment unless they did so unanimously. He also argued that the courts should determine which states had permission to participate in the process and which states did not.

Those of us who have familiarized themselves with the materials provided by Publius are not at all surprised by the nature of the objections to the Article V amendment process.

Indeed, history has shown that Congress will avoid calling such a convention by simply ignoring the vote tally of the states or by citing some contrived objection. Certainly, Congress will act (or in this case more likely fail to act) to protect its powers which really means to protect its usurpations of the Constitution. Among those stratagems we expect Congress to employ include imposing restrictions on the nature of the convention and the identity of the delegates. Probably the gravest threat would be an attempt to impose a one man, one vote on the convention process which might find support in the courts.

In any event all this is thoroughly aired by Publius and by the materials he has so thoughtfully provided for us. We are not naïve but neither are we daunted.

[Robert DeLong]

The Dishonorable Warren Earl Burger

[Political Junkie Too]

Asserting that “only a federal agency (Congress, as provided by the Constitution) is competent to propose” amendments, he claimed that the convention procedure should be disregarded as “no longer of any effect.”

He might as well declare that the Supremacy clause is no longer in effect. He can't, though, because he needs it to justify everything else.

So Article V is either supreme law of the land, or nothing is.

-PJ