Constitutional Convention
Per your (Frederick) question about the possibility of a Constitutional Convention.
For a Constitutional Convention to take place requires two thirds of the states to be on board and at least one specific proposed amendment. That does not mean that other actions against the Constitution cannot take place though, the specified amendment need not be the only order of business of a Con-Con.
Any proposed amendments then require approval by three quarters of the 50 states.
The approval does not have to come by the legislature of each state, approval could, as an alternative, come by way of a state convention rather than legislative vote/approval.
This is how I understand the process at any rate.
If my understanding is correct, then 50 governors could call for a Con-Con and one would not take place. It must, again in my understanding, be the legislatures of the individual states which call for a Con-Con.
Article V makes no mention of the governors of the individual states but does specify the legislature.
There are two methods in Article V by which to amend the Constitution, I believe the first of the two is the safest method.
No matter if my understanding of the process is right or wrong, I believe a Con-Con would be a bad thing.
If my math is correct, and I am mathematically a complete idiot, I believe only 34 states would be needed to call a con-con. The quote you provided said 35 have already done so, if that were correct I would think a con-con would already be underway.
For a Constitutional Convention to take place requires two thirds of the states to be on board and at least one specific proposed amendment. That does not mean that other actions against the Constitution cannot take place though, the specified amendment need not be the only order of business of a Con-Con.
Any proposed amendments then require approval by three quarters of the 50 states.
The approval does not have to come by the legislature of each state, approval could, as an alternative, come by way of a state convention rather than legislative vote/approval.
This is how I understand the process at any rate.
If my understanding is correct, then 50 governors could call for a Con-Con and one would not take place. It must, again in my understanding, be the legislatures of the individual states which call for a Con-Con.
Article V makes no mention of the governors of the individual states but does specify the legislature.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
There are two methods in Article V by which to amend the Constitution, I believe the first of the two is the safest method.
No matter if my understanding of the process is right or wrong, I believe a Con-Con would be a bad thing.
If my math is correct, and I am mathematically a complete idiot, I believe only 34 states would be needed to call a con-con. The quote you provided said 35 have already done so, if that were correct I would think a con-con would already be underway.
Views: 3
© 2024 Created by Chairman's Committee.
Powered by
