[Publius]

I have question abour precedent.

In 1913, enough states requested a convention on the issue of the direct election of senators to require Congress to call a convention. But Congress didn't. Instead, it sent its own version of a constitutional amendment to the states to defuse the situation.

Because Congress didn't call a convention when the Constitution required it, didn't that set a precedent? Because of that, can't Congress refuse to call a convention the next time 34 states request one?

[Congressman Billybob]

No nasty precedent. Then, as well as with the Balanced Budget Amendment which almost triggered the same result, some of the states issued "conditional calls." They said, we demand that Congress pass a proposed amendment which does X (make the Senate elected, pass a balanced budget, whatever). When Congress did act on the 17th Amendment, some of the calls were withdrawn, in their own terms.

Mind you, I am not arguing that the 17th Amendment was a good idea. It turns out it was a very bad idea. I am merely pointing out how the process works, when the states choose to force an idea down the throat of a reluctant Congress.

Congressman Billybob

Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"

""I Was in the First Wave'"