Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800
> From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
> Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis

> Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our
> history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen.  The current
> constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles 
> of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under
> procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles.

Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the
express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were
faulty and needed replacement.

Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such
a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the
new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules
under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the
Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and
precedence.

> Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the
> amendments.  I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using
> the legislature method.

Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying
their submission and implimentation mechanism?


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
             Technology cannot make us other than what we are.

                                           James P. Hogan

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

On 981125, Jim Choate wrote:
> Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the
> express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were
> faulty and needed replacement.

But that wasn't the goal, at least not the stated goal.  The Convention
was called under the procedures specified in the Articles.  The Convention
itself decided to change the rules for ratification.

> > Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the
> > amendments.  I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using
> > the legislature method.
> 
> Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying
> their submission and implimentation mechanism?

Congress specified in both (all) cases.  For the original prohibition
amendment, they submitted it to state legislatures.  For the repeal amendment, 
they submitted it to state conventions.