Home  ›  Proposals for an Amendment to the Constitution Can Be Made by Congress or by _____.

Proposals for an Amendment to the Constitution Can Be Made by Congress or by _____.

Written By Wednesday, February 16, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Process for amending the U.S. constitution

A convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, likewise called an Article V Convention, amendatory convention, or a convention of states, practical for past 2-thirds (currently 34) of the land legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the United states Constitution may exist altered. Amendments may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the Firm of Representatives and the Senate.[1]

To become function of the Constitution, an amendment which has been formally proposed must so be ratified past either—every bit adamant past Congress—the legislatures of iii-fourths (shortly 38) of the states, or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. 30-3 amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved past Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are at present part of the Constitution. As of 2021[update], the amendment convention process has never been used for proposing a ramble amendment at the federal level. At the state level, more than than 230 constitutional conventions have assembled in the United States.[2]

While there have been calls for an "Article 5 Convention" based on a single issue such as the counterbalanced budget amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this manner would be legally bound to limit discussion to a unmarried upshot; police force professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would accept the "power to propose anything it sees fit",[3] whereas law professor Michael Rappaport[4] and attorney-at-law Robert Kelly[5] believe that a limited convention is possible.

In contempo years, some take argued that state governments should call for such a convention.[6] [7] They include Michael Farris, Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, Jonathan Turley, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and Greg Abbott.[half dozen] [viii] [9] [x] [11] In 2015, Citizens for Cocky-Governance launched a nationwide endeavour to telephone call an Article V Convention, through a project called Convention of u.s., in a bid to "rein in the federal government".[12] Every bit of Jan 2022[update], CSG'southward resolution has passed in 17 States.[13] [14] [15] Similarly, the group Wolf-PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn the U.Southward. Supreme Court'due south decision in Citizens United five. FEC. Their resolution has passed in five states.[16]

Organizations opposed to an Commodity V convention include the John Birch Club, the Heart on Budget and Policy Priorities, Hawkeye Forum, and Common Cause, while the Heritage Foundation has also cautioned against a convention.[17]

History [edit]

Eight state constitutions in outcome at the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia included an amendment mechanism. Amendment-making ability rested with the legislature in three of united states and in the other five information technology was given to peculiarly elected conventions. The Articles of Confederation provided that amendments were to be proposed by Congress and ratified past the unanimous vote of all xiii state legislatures. This was seen by the Federalists as a major flaw in the Articles, equally information technology created a nearly insurmountable obstruction to ramble reform. The amendment process crafted during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison later wrote in The Federalist No. 43, was designed to plant a balance between pliancy and rigidity:[eighteen]

Information technology guards every bit against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover as enables the General and the State Governments to originate the amendment of errors, equally they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.

Creation of the amendment process [edit]

The U.Due south. constitutional amendment process

I of the main reasons for the 1787 Convention was that the Manufactures of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all xiii states for the national government to have action. This arrangement had proved unworkable, and the newly written Constitution sought to address this trouble.

The first proposal for a method of amending the Constitution offered in the Ramble Convention, contained in the Virginia Programme, sought to circumvent the national legislature, stating that "the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required."[xix] This was afterwards modified by the Committee of Detail to include a process whereby Congress would telephone call for a constitutional convention on the asking of two-thirds of the land legislatures.[20]

During the argue on the Committee of Detail's report, James Madison expressed business organisation nearly the lack of item in the commodity regarding how the convention amendment process would piece of work, stating that "difficulties might arise equally to the form" a convention would have.[21] He later proposed removing reference to the convention amendment process, thus giving the national legislature sole authority to propose amendments whenever it thought necessary or when two-thirds of usa applied to the national legislature.[22] Several delegates voiced opposition to the idea of the national legislature retaining sole power to propose constitutional amendments.[23] George Mason argued from the floor of the Convention that it "would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account." Mason added that, "no amendments of the proper kind would e'er be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive."[24] In response to these concerns, the Convention unanimously voted to add the language allowing states to utilise to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.[23]

Permissible scope of applications to Congress [edit]

A frequent question is whether applications from the states can omit to mention subject matter, and instead request an unlimited convention. Past practice suggests that split unlimited applications submitted to Congress at unlike times are non allowed.[25] Commodity 5 itself calls for "the application of the legislatures" instead of calling for plural "applications".

States accept requested that Congress convene an Article 5 convention to advise amendments on a variety of subjects. Co-ordinate to the National Athenaeum, Congress has, however, never officially tabulated the applications, nor separated them by subject matter.[26] On at least one occasion though, the Congressional Record has included such a tabulation, which indicated that, equally of 22 September 1981[update], thirty states had fabricated a request for a balanced budget amendment.[27] In 1993, professor Michael Paulsen and his research staff assembled a list of all state applications to date, but neither Paulsen'due south list, nor any other, can exist safely characterized every bit "complete" since there may very well be land applications that accept been overlooked and/or forgotten.[28]

In 2 law review manufactures in 1993 and again in 2011, Paulsen argued that country applications for an Article V convention limited to a detail subject affair are invalid and that only applications that include a call for an unrestricted convention are valid.[28] If Paulsen's criteria that state applications must not be limited to detail bailiwick matter and that a rescission by states are valid, so forty-five applications from states were active every bit of 1993. Paulsen argues that Congress has had aplenty management to call a convention on these grounds.[25] [29]

There has been no definitive determination by the Supreme Court regarding the state convention subpoena method, though information technology has handled several cases and an array of arguments on the telescopic which Amendments tin can ultimately bear on. The 1939 example Coleman v. Miller, which questioned whether a state legislature could relinquish endorsement of an Amendment pertaining to kid labor, decided in part, "the question whether a reasonable time had elapsed since submission of the proposal was a nonjusticiable political question, the kinds of considerations entering into deciding being fit for Congress to evaluate, and the question of the upshot of a previous rejection upon a ratification was similarly nonjusticiable, because the 1868 Fourteenth Subpoena precedent of congressional conclusion 'has been accustomed.'"[xxx] The case is seen to stand equally say-so for the proposition that at least some decisions with respect to the proposal and ratifications of constitutional amendments are exclusively inside the purview of Congress, either considering they are textually committed to Congress or because the courts lack adequate criteria of conclusion to laissez passer on them.

Permissible scope of proposed amendments [edit]

"We the People" in an original edition of the Constitution

Because no Article V convention has always been convened, there are various questions about how such a convention would role in exercise. One major question is whether the scope of the convention'due south subject affair could be limited.[23]

The language of Article Five leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received. Comments made at the time the Constitution was adopted signal that it was understood when the Constitution was drafted that Congress would have no discretion. In The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton stated that when the proper number of applications had been received, Congress was "obliged" to phone call a convention and that "aught is left to the discretion of Congress."[31] James Madison besides affirmed Hamilton'southward contention that Congress was obligated to call a convention when the requisite number of states requested it.[32]

In the North Carolina debates almost ratifying the Constitution, James Iredell, who subsequently became 1 of the founding members of the Supreme Court, stated that when two-thirds of states have applied to Congress for a convention, Congress is "nether the necessity of convening ane" and that they have "no option."[33]

By citing the Constitution'southward Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has tried to enact a statute to regulate how an Article V convention would function. Sponsored by the late Senator Sam Ervin, such a nib passed the U.Southward. Senate unanimously in 1971 and again in 1973,[34] but the proposed legislation remained bottled upwards in the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. House of Representatives and died both times. Senator Orrin Hatch made a similar proposal several times in the late 1980s culminating in 1991 with no more than success. Opponents to congressional regulation of an Article V convention's operations fence that neither Commodity I nor Commodity V of the Constitution grants Congress this power, and that the Founders intended that Congress "accept no option." In that location has been no opportunity for federal courts to decide whether Congress has such authority because such legislation has never been adopted by Congress.

Some scholars believe that states have the ability to limit the scope of an Commodity 5 convention: Larry Sabato is one scholar who avant-garde that view.[35] Some feel that Congress's duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states requested. If usa, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject area matter, and then the convention that is called would likely need to exist limited in the style the states requested.[36]

If states have the ability to limit an Article V convention to a item subject matter, and Congress only has ability to call a convention but no farther power to control or regulate information technology, then a potential concern becomes whether an Commodity V convention could become a "delinquent convention" that attempts to exceed its scope. If a convention did effort to exceed its scope, none of the amendments it proposed would go role of the constitution until three-fourths of the states ratified them, which is more states than are required to call a convention in the offset identify.[37] Some proponents of a convention express incertitude that an Commodity V convention would exceed its scope, in light of the United States' experience with state ramble conventions; over 600 state constitutional conventions take been held to amend country constitutions, with footling evidence that any of them have exceeded their scope.[38] This is reinforced by the fact that prior to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, there were many other conventions of the states (some called by Congress, but most called by the states themselves) where the delegates operated inside the scope of their commissions.[39]

Further, at many Conventions, States have directly controlled their delegates. In the New Hampshire Convention to ratify the U.South. Constitution, delegates were sent with instructions to vote against the Constitution: when they were convinced that the voters had been mistaken, the delegates later returned to their constituents to convince them and request new instructions, assuasive the Convention to represent the true voice of the people.

Similarly, in the 1787 Convention, problems arose after two of New York's delegates walked out in protest, equally the New York State Legislature had created a rule that required ii delegates to agree to cast a vote on behalf of the country. Every bit the legislature opted non to send new delegates, Alexander Hamilton accepted the dominance of the state and was unable to cast a vote for the remainder of the Convention. This is the fundamental difference between a Delegate to a Convention, there to practise the bidding of their constituents, and a Representative to a Legislature, in that location to stand in place of their constituents and make decisions based on their own deliberation.

The delegates to the 1787 Ramble Convention did disregard Congress'south recommendation to "solely amend the Articles"[40] only as Madison noted in Federalist No. twoscore, the resolution Congress passed in February 1787 endorsing the Convention was only a recommendation.[41] Regardless, the delegates sent nix to the states at all, sending their new Constitution to Congress, as was their mandate. Congress debated the matter before voting to send information technology on to united states of america for ratification with no recommendation for or against.

Ability of states to rescind applications to Congress [edit]

The legislatures of some states have adopted rescissions of their prior applications. Information technology is not clear from the linguistic communication of Article V whether a subsequent vote to rescind an application is permissible. Equally discussed to a higher place, however, if the purpose of Commodity Five is to give state legislatures power over a recalcitrant Congress—and if state lawmakers may indeed limit their applications by specific bailiwick matter—it is possible that federal courts would hold that rescissions of previous applications are besides valid, in society to give more meaningful effect to the ability which Article V confers upon state legislators.[42]

If information technology is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior awarding, then Ohio'due south 2013 application for a balanced budget amendment convention would exist the 33rd and Michigan's 2014 application would be the 34th (out of the necessary 34) on that topic, rather than the 20th and 22nd, respectively.[43] The counterbalanced budget amendment applications past Ohio and Michigan were new, showtime-time convention applications, whereas the renewed applications from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Utah simply reprised applications made by those states during the 1970s only which had been rescinded during the catamenia between 1988 and 2010.

Those[ who? ] challenge that rescission is incommunicable frequently besides debate that different topics can be combined during a convention'southward deliberations. Congress has more than than enough applications on a unmarried issue to call a convention—if rescission is not valid—and more than than enough applications on multiple topics regardless of rescissions. Consequently, if a State believes that combining topics could be done by Congress, even if a State feels that doing so would be contrary to the intent of the Constitution, so that Country would also have to conclude that Congress can ignore rescission.

Since 2016, seven land legislatures (Delaware in 2016; New United mexican states, Maryland, Nevada and Texas all in 2017; South Dakota in 2019; and Colorado in 2021) have rescinded previous applications to phone call for such a convention.

Supreme Courtroom interpretations of Article V [edit]

While the Supreme Court has never definitively interpreted the meaning of Article V, it has, on four split up occasions, referred to the Article 5 convention procedure:

Dodge five. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): "[The people] have directed that amendments should exist made representatively for them, by the Congress ...; or where the legislatures of ii thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, go valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified ..."

Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): "[Article V] makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the legislatures of ii-thirds of the states, thus securing deliberation and consideration before any alter can exist proposed. The proposed modify can simply become effective by the ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in a similar number of states. The method of ratification is left to the choice of Congress."[44]

Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.South. 368 (1921): In a ruling upholding Congress'south authority to place a deadline on a particular Ramble subpoena'south ratification, the Court reaffirmed that "A farther way of proposal—equally yet never invoked—is provided, which is that, on the awarding of two-thirds of the states, Congress shall telephone call a convention for the purpose."[45]

United States five. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): "[A]rticle 5 is clear in argument and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. ... It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may advise them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of united states, must telephone call a convention to advise them."

Because of the political question doctrine and the Courtroom's ruling in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433), it remains an open question whether federal courts could assert jurisdiction over a legal challenge to Congress, if Congress were to refuse to call a convention.

Attempts to telephone call an Article V convention [edit]

Every country except Hawaii has practical for an Article V Convention at one time or some other. The majority of such applications were fabricated in the 20th century. Before any official count had been taken, i individual count puts the full number of applications at over 700.[47] [48] This is widely considered an overestimate. The United states House of Representatives is in the process of edifice its own official count which currently stands at over 120 with 35 states having electric current live calls that have not been rescinded. This is an underestimate as it so far does not include anything before the 1960s and there are many known Convention calls subsequent to 1960 which are not notwithstanding included in the Business firm'southward 1960 to 2022 tally. Both Wolf-PAC and the Convention of the States estimate, based on spot checking, that the real figure is in the range of 400 calls.

Even though the Article 5 Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has almost reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on some occasions, at least in part, considering of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than hazard such a convention taking control of the subpoena process away from information technology, Congress acted pre-emptively to advise the amendments instead. The Beak of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments, too as the Twenty-seventh Amendment, were proposed in office because of a Convention application by the New York and Virginia legislatures at the suggestion of a letter from the New York State Convention to ratify the Constitution. The Convention would accept been limited to those changes discussed at the various State ratifying Conventions. At least four other amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-2nd, and Twenty-5th Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Commodity V convention, bringing the total to 15 out of 27, a majority of the Amendments.[49]

Direct election of Senators [edit]

In the late 1890s, the Firm of Representatives passed multiple resolutions for a constitutional amendment providing for direct election of senators. The Senate refused to consider those resolutions.[50] In 1893, Nebraska filed the first Article V application for direct election of senators. Past 1911, 29 states[51] had Article V convention applications on file for an amendment providing for direct election of senators, merely two short of the 31-state threshold.[52] As new states were being added the threshold increased, however those States had already passed resolutions supporting such a Convention. The final count is somewhat uncertain, simply when either one or two further states were required the Senate finally conceded and passed its version of an subpoena in May 1911, which was and then approved by the Business firm in 1912 and submitted to the states.

Congressional circulation [edit]

In that location have been two near successful attempts to improve the Constitution via an Article V Convention since the late 1960s. The first endeavour was an attempt to suggest an amendment that would overturn two Supreme Court decisions, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds five. Sims, decisions that required states to adhere to the 1 man, one vote principle in cartoon electoral districts for state and federal elections. The endeavour fell only ane state brusk of reaching the 34 needed to force Congress to phone call a convention in 1969, merely concluded by the expiry of its main promoter Senator Everett Dirksen. After this peak, several states (whose legislatures by this betoken had been re-engineered in the wake of the rulings) rescinded their applications, and interest in the proposed amendment subsided.[53]

Counterbalanced upkeep [edit]

In response to increasing federal deficits, a movement in the 1970s by the states to impose fiscal subject area on the federal government began. Between 1975 and 1979, thirty states petitioned Congress for a convention to write a balanced upkeep amendment.[54] By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, merely 2 states short of the 34 needed to forcefulness such a convention.[55] In addition, at least four states (California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Montana) had adopted resolutions requesting that Congress advise a deficit spending subpoena.[56] California and Montana were prepare to agree ballot initiatives that would have forced their legislatures to file convention applications, but land courts ruled the two ballot initiatives unconstitutional, and the endeavour stalled.[57] Enthusiasm for the subpoena subsided in response to fears that an Article 5 Convention could non exist limited to a unmarried subject[56] and because Congress passed the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Counterbalanced Budget Act in 1985[56] (The act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986[55] but Congress enacted a reworked version of the police in 1987[58]). Past 1988, 2 states (Alabama and Florida) had rescinded their applications on the topic of a federal balanced upkeep amendment.[56] Similar rescissions were approved in Louisiana (1990), Oregon (1999), Idaho (2000), Utah, (2001), North Dakota (2001) Wyoming (2001), Arizona (2003) and Georgia (2004).[56]

Recently the movement has seen a revival. On November 20, 2013, the Ohio General Assembly practical to Congress for a convention to propose a balanced upkeep subpoena. This try made Ohio the 21st land to bring together a push for a national convention of states.[59] On March 26, 2014, the Michigan Legislature applied to Congress for a convention to suggest a balanced upkeep subpoena, making Michigan the 22nd to participate in the national endeavour.[60] On April 27, 2016, the Oklahoma Senate canonical an Commodity V convention on a balanced budget subpoena, making Oklahoma the 29th country to participate in the national attempt.[61] On November 7, 2017, the Wisconsin Legislature approved an Article V convention resolution for a balanced budget amendment.

Campaign finance [edit]

A political action commission called Wolf-PAC emerged from New York's Occupy Wall Street move in October 2011. Wolf-PAC calls for a convention of states in gild to propose a ramble amendment that addresses the upshot of campaign finance. The resolution reads "Corporations are non people. They accept none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not immune to give money to whatever politician, direct or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed." [62] [63]

As of 2021[update], Wolf-PAC's application had been adopted in five states: California, Illinois and Vermont in 2014; New Jersey in 2015; and Rhode Island in 2016.

Convention of States Project [edit]

The conservative group Citizens for Cocky-Governance (CSG) is engaged in an ongoing endeavor to call an Article V Convention. Through its "Convention of States Project", CSG is seeking "to urge and empower state legislators to phone call a convention of states." CSG states that it initiated the Convention of States project "for the purpose of stopping the runaway power of the federal government."[64] [65] [66] [67] [68] Mark Levin has supported CSG'due south efforts to a phone call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the constitution.[68]

In December 2013, virtually 100 legislators from 32 states met at Mount Vernon to talk about how to call a convention of states. According to Slate, "The coming together lasted 4 hours, ending when legislators agreed to see again in the spring of 2014. That's the well-nigh progress anyone's made in decades toward a states-first constitutional amendment entrada."[68]

In February 2014, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn announced that after his retirement from Congress, he would focus on promoting the Convention of States to land legislatures.[69] In Dec 2015, Marco Rubio endorsed CSG'due south efforts to a call an Commodity V Convention.[68] [seventy] In Jan 2016, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a Convention of States to restrict the ability of the federal government. In June 2017, former U.S. Senator and former Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint appear his role as a senior adviser for the Convention of States project.[71]

In September 2016, CSG held a simulated convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution in Williamsburg, Virginia.[72] An associates of 137 delegates representing every state gathered to carry a imitation convention.[73] The false convention passed amendments relating to 6 topics, including requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt, imposing term limits, restricting the telescopic of the Commerce Clause, limiting the ability of federal regulations, requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, and giving usa the power to countervail whatsoever federal police, regulation, or executive social club.[74]

Every bit of 2022[update], CSG's application for a Convention of States has been passed in 17 states.[75]

Single Subject Amendment PAC [edit]

A Super PAC called Single Subject Subpoena registered with the Federal Election Committee on March ane, 2013. It is actively engaged in an effort to call an Article 5 Convention for the limited purpose of proposing an subpoena to provide every constabulary enacted past Congress shall encompass only one bailiwick which shall be clearly expressed in the nib'due south title.[76] [77] [78] Twoscore-one country constitutions have a single subject provision just this provision is not in the United states Constitution. In Apr 2014, Florida became the first state to brand an application for an Article V Convention to constitutionally prohibit unrelated riders in Congress.[79] [80] [81]

See besides [edit]

  • Second Ramble Convention of the U.s.a.
  • Intergovernmental Conference
  • Constituent assembly

References [edit]

  1. ^ "The Constitutional Amendment Process". The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved November 17, 2015.
  2. ^ Weber, Paul; Perry, Barbara (1989). Unfounded Fears: Myths and Realities of a Constitutional Convention. p. 81.
  3. ^ Korte, Greg. "Counterbalanced budget amendment push button sparks debate", Us Today (November 29, 2011).
  4. ^ Rappaport, Michael. "The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Assay", Ramble Commentary, Vol. 81, p. 53 (2012).
  5. ^ Kelly, Robert. "An Article Five Convention Can Be Express". Convention of States . Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  6. ^ a b James O'Toole (December 12, 2011). "Ramble convention phone call gains traction". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . Retrieved Dec xiv, 2011. Article V of the Constitution, however, in the same section that set upwardly that procedure, set forth the legal possibility for the legislatures of ii-thirds of the states to instruct Congress to phone call a constitutional convention, a machinery, in the view of some authorities critics, whose time has come.
  7. ^ Gregory Korte (November 29, 2011). "Balanced upkeep amendment push button sparks debate". USA Today . Retrieved December xiv, 2011. Some supporters of a balanced upkeep subpoena to the Constitution are turning to a method last used by the founding fathers: A ramble convention.
  8. ^ Christopher Shea (November two, 2011). "Fourth dimension for a Constitutional Convention?". Wall Street Periodical . Retrieved December xiv, 2011. As you lot might gauge, they're coming at the issue from different angles, but they and other conference attendees shared a frustration with the current structure of the authorities (or contempo Supreme Court decisions, or both).
  9. ^ Turley, Jonathan (February eleven, 2010). "Real political reform should go beyond entrada finance". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved March viii, 2012.
  10. ^ Proposed Subpoena past Governor Greg Abbott of Texas (Retrieved May 15, 2018)
  11. ^ (Retrieved June 9, 2018)
  12. ^ Sherfinski, David (February two, 2015). "Virginia weighs joining convention of states endeavour to rein in federal powers". Washington Times . Retrieved Feb 25, 2015.
  13. ^ "Nebraska wins! Land legislature becomes 17th nationwide to phone call for Convention of States".
  14. ^ "Progress Map: States that have passed the Convention of States Article V application".
  15. ^ Pollack, Cassandra (May 27, 2017). "Convention of states-related nib hits Gov. Greg Abbott's desk-bound". Texas Tribune . Retrieved May 30, 2017.
  16. ^ Bogdan, Jennifer (June xx, 2016). "At R.I. State House, Wolf-PAC lobbyists made late push". Providence Journal . Retrieved April 10, 2017.
  17. ^ H. Neale, Thomas (November 15, 2017). "The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments" (PDF). fas.org. Congressional Enquiry Service. Retrieved May vi, 2021.
  18. ^ England, Trent & Spalding, Matthew. "Essays on Commodity V: Amendments". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 31, 2014.
  19. ^ Farrand, Max. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (1937), vol. 1, p. 22. Besides see "Records of the Federal Convention", The Founders Constitution, ed. Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner (U. Chicago Printing).
  20. ^ England, Trent & Spalding, Matthew. "Essays on Article V: Amendments". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  21. ^ Farrand, Max. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (1937), vol. 2, pp. 629–thirty
  22. ^ Rogers 2007, p. 1007.
  23. ^ a b c Rogers 2007.
  24. ^ Caplan, Russell. Constitutional Brinksmanship, pp. 27–29; quoting Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 4 vols., (New Oasis: Yale University Press, revised ed., 1937), ane:22, 202–03, 629.
  25. ^ a b Paulsen 1993, p. 764.
  26. ^ Ross, Rodney. Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration, March 12, 2007 letter of the alphabet to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont, "Unfortunately there is no unmarried category for petitions asking for amendments to the Constitution, let solitary for amendments by the convention route."
  27. ^ 129 Cong. Rec. S21538 (1981) (collecting applications calling for a constitutional convention since 1974).
  28. ^ a b Paulsen 1993.
  29. ^ Rogers 2007, p. 1018.
  30. ^ "Annotation 3 - Article V". Findlaw.
  31. ^ Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist Papers, no. 85 (1788). In the third to last paragraph, Hamilton states:

    But there is nevertheless a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States hold, will accept no option upon the field of study. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states [which at present amount to 9], to telephone call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall exist valid, to all intents and purposes, every bit part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of usa, or past conventions in three fourths thereof."

    The words of this article are peremptory: the Congress "shall phone call a convention." Nothing in this detail is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite 2-thirds or three-fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may bear upon local interests, can there be any room to apprehend whatsoever such difficulty in a wedlock on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

    If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, sure it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my formulation, ane of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical sit-in.
  32. ^ Madison, James. Letter of the alphabet to George Eve, ii January 1789. Meet also Madison's remark in the House, that it is ". . . out of the power of Congress to turn down complying," in 1 Register of Congress, 1 Congress one, (May 5, 1789), p. 260; besides available in Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, p. 47.
  33. ^ Elliot, Jonathan. The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (1937), vol. four, pp. 177–78. Also bachelor in "Contend in Due north Carolina Ratifying Convention", The Founders Constitution, ed. Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner (U. Chicago Press).
  34. ^ "S.1272 - 93rd Congress (1973-1974): Federal Constitutional Convention Procedures Act". www.congress.gov. July x, 1973. Retrieved January 25, 2019.
  35. ^ Sabato, Larry. A More Perfect Constitution (2007).
  36. ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 1014–xix.
  37. ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 1010–20.
  38. ^ Shearer, Augustus. A List of Official Publications of American Land Constitutional Conventions, 1776–1916 (1917).
  39. ^ Natelson, Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution'south 'Convention for Proposing Amendments, 65 Fla. Fifty. Rev. 615 (2013).
  40. ^ Farris, Michael. "Tin can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the "Runaway Convention" Myth". conventionofstates.com.
  41. ^ "The Avalon Project : Federalist No forty". avalon.law.yale.edu.
  42. ^ Rogers 2007, pp. 1014–20.
  43. ^ Neale, Thomas H. (November 15, 2017). "The Article 5 Convention to Suggest Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments" (PDF). Congressional Inquiry Service.
  44. ^ "Hawke v. Smith, (1920)". Retrieved November 14, 2015.
  45. ^ "Dillon v. Gloss, (1921". Retrieved November 14, 2015.
  46. ^ Lawrence Lessig (February 8, 2010). "How to Get Our Republic Back". CBS News, The Nation. Retrieved December 14, 2011. Office of the economic system of influence that corrupts our government today is that Capitol Loma has get, as Representative Jim Cooper put it, a "farm league for Thousand Street."
  47. ^ "Images of Article V Applications". Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  48. ^ The list, prepared by the Friends of the Article Five Convention, a group that believes that Congress has purposefully ignored its mandate to telephone call such a convention, included, as of March 20, 2010, 39 entries where the land legislature rescinded 1 or more earlier applications.
  49. ^ Rogers 2007, p. 1008.
  50. ^ "17th Amendment to the U.South. Constitution: Straight Ballot of U.S. Senators". August 15, 2016. Retrieved December 23, 2016.
  51. ^ "Article5Library.com Article V Convention Awarding Assay". Retrieved Dec 23, 2016.
  52. ^ There were just 46 states prior to admission of Arizona and New Mexico in 1912).
  53. ^ Rogers 2007, p. 1009.
  54. ^ MORGAN, IWAN (December 1998). "Unconventional Politics: The Campaign for a Balanced Budget Amendment Constitutional Convention in the 1970". Journal of American Studies. 32 (iii): 421–445. doi:10.1017/S0021875898006008. JSTOR 27556477.
  55. ^ a b Rogers 2007, p. 1010.
  56. ^ a b c d e James V. Saturno; Megan Suzanne Lynch (January 8, 2018). A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options (PDF). Congressional Enquiry Service. pp. 23–26.
  57. ^ "America might see a new constitutional convention in a few years". The Economist. September 30, 2017.
  58. ^ "H.J.RES.324 All Congressional Actions". THOMAS. Library of Congress. September 29, 1987. Retrieved December 17, 2010. [ permanent dead link ]
  59. ^ Pelzer, Jeremy (November 22, 2013). "Ohio lawmakers bring together in push for national convention on balanced-budget subpoena". Cleveland Plain Dealer . Retrieved Jan 21, 2014.
  60. ^ Oosting, Jonathan (March 26, 2014). "Michigan petitions Congress for federal counterbalanced budget amendment, ramble convention". MLive . Retrieved March 31, 2014.
  61. ^ Arnett, David (April 27, 2016). "Oklahoma Senate approved Article 5 Convention". Tulsa Today . Retrieved July 1, 2016.
  62. ^ The Rapidian, Catalyst Radio on Friday Sep 20th, 2013 11:30am with Linda Gellasch and WYCE Radio 88.i FM, Catalyst Radio: Wolf-PAC starting with local efforts to get coin out of politics, Accessed Jan. 15, 2014
  63. ^ Katerina Nikolas, November 9, 2011 in Globe, Digital Journal, Wolf-PAC.com: Proposal to forbid corporations buying politicians, Accessed Jan. 15, 2014, "...In October, Cenk Uygur, ... announced the launch of Wolf-PAC during Occupy Wall Street protests. Wolf-PAC is a political activeness commission with a mission to pass the 28th Amendment to preclude corporations buying politicians..."
  64. ^ "Welcome". Convention of States. Citizens for Self-Governance.
  65. ^ Ritz, Erica (Dec eighteen, 2013). "Could a Convention of States Occur as Early as 2016?". The Blaze . Retrieved January 5, 2014.
  66. ^ Roller, Emma (December 4, 2013). "Conservatives' Improbable New 'Convention of States' Project". Slate . Retrieved January 21, 2014.
  67. ^ Benko, Ralph (Baronial 19, 2013). "Marking Levin's Game Changer: Using The Constitution To Arrest Federal Drift". Forbes . Retrieved January 21, 2014.
  68. ^ a b c d Weigel, David; Roller, Emma (December 10, 2013). "Inside the Hugger-mugger Conservative Campaign to Rewrite the Constitution". Slate . Retrieved January 21, 2014.
  69. ^ Weigel, David (Feb half-dozen, 2014). "Georgia, Tom Coburn Call for Constitutional Convention". Slate . Retrieved February 26, 2014.
  70. ^ Sherfinski, David (December 30, 2015). "Rubio backs call for constitutional convention to balance upkeep, impose term limits". Washington Times . Retrieved Jan 4, 2016.
  71. ^ Schouten, Fredreka. "In latest task, Jim DeMint wants to give Tea Party 'a new mission'". www.usatoday.com. USA Today. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
  72. ^ Harris, Andrew (September 23, 2016). "Tea Political party co-founder holds convention in Williamsburg for amending Constitution". Williamsburg Yorktown Daily. Retrieved October iv, 2016.
  73. ^ Tinsley, Anna (September 30, 2016). "Is Texas ready to join a movement to rewrite history?". Star-Telegram . Retrieved October 4, 2016.
  74. ^ Farris, Michael; Ellis, Jenna (September 29, 2016). "A Convention of the States to Amend the Constitution". National Review . Retrieved October 4, 2016.
  75. ^ Patriot, Article V. "17th state passes resolution for a COS". Convention Of States. COS Activeness.
  76. ^ "July Newsletter". Commodity V News. Retrieved Feb 11, 2015.
  77. ^ Michael Hinman (Jan fifteen, 2015). "Cusp of history: Pasco leads fashion to amend Constitution". The Laker. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  78. ^ Michael Hinman (May ane, 2014). "Florida first state to demand a unmarried-subject Constitutional convention". The Laker/Lutz News. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  79. ^ "CS/HM 261 - Constitutional Convention/Single-Field of study Requirement for Federal Legislation". Florida House of Representatives. Retrieved February xi, 2015.
  80. ^ "S0368. Ramble Convention/Single-Subject area Requirement for Federal Legislation". GovTrack. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  81. ^ "H0261. Constitutional Convention/Unmarried-Field of study Requirement for Federal Legislation". GovTrack. Retrieved February 11, 2015.

Bibliography [edit]

  • Paulsen, Michael (1993). "A General Theory of Article 5: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment". Yale Police force Journal. 103 (three): 677–789. doi:10.2307/797083. JSTOR 797083.
  • Paulsen, Michael (2011). "How to Count to 30-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention". Harvard Journal of Police and Public Policy. 34: 837. SSRN 1856719.
  • Rogers, James (2007). "The Other Manner to Improve the Constitution: The Article V Ramble Convention Amendment Procedure" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Police force and Public Policy. thirty: 1005.

Further reading [edit]

  • Klein, Philip. "Is it Time for a Convention?", American Spectator (Oct 2010).
  • Natelson, Robert. "How by american conventions inspired the constitution'southward convention for proposing amendments", The Volokh Conspiracy (December 7, 2015).
  • Natelson, Robert. "How the founders inserted the amendments convention into the constitution", The Volokh Conspiracy (December eight, 2015).
  • Natelson, Robert. "How u.s. have used conventions and the amendment process to promote reform", The Volokh Conspiracy (Dec 9, 2015).
  • Natelson, Robert. "How the judiciary'southward decisions shed light on the federal amendments convention", The Volokh Conspiracy (December 10, 2015).
  • Natelson, Robert. "How the convention for proposing amendments became the discipline of popular mythology", The Volokh Conspiracy (Dec xi, 2015).
  • Natelson, Robert. "How the procedures for a mod amendments convention may unfold", The Volokh Conspiracy (Dec 11, 2015).

External links [edit]

  • The Convention of States Project (Citizens for Self-Governance website)

armstrongblith1981.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

0 Response to "Proposals for an Amendment to the Constitution Can Be Made by Congress or by _____."

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel