To: Jacquerie
The critical statement:
“In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.”
I read this as rescission of prior ratification have no legal basis. Once a state ratifies, and that ratification is certified, it is permanent.
This being the case, if Illinois current resolution passes, it most likely means that an Article V convention will be called.
Importantly, wherever the convention is held will have to have the tightest security the US has ever seen for such an event. Every spy on the planet, every terrorist, every corporation, and a whole bunch of others will do anything to penetrate it.
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I post my usual boilerplate with a request that you print off and save the two documents to which I link at the end of this post. Rescission of an Amendments Convention petition is unsettled law, and the two documents have very different positions with respect to that question.
---
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
- The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
- The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
- State Legislature Method, or the
- State Ratifying Convention Method.
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
- No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. Were past that deadline.
- No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.
Implicitly forbidden:
- The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
7 posted on
04/11/2014 4:03:53 PM PDT by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I hope this link works.
With respect to this particular set of petitions for an Amendments Convention, this post covers a lot of legal ground.
8 posted on
04/11/2014 4:10:21 PM PDT by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
<>Once a state ratifies, and that ratification is certified, it is permanent.<>
It appears that way.
There is a chance IL could pass the balanced budget amendment?
10 posted on
04/11/2014 4:15:52 PM PDT by
Jacquerie
( Fivers unite! We have nothing to lose and our freedoms to gain at an Article V state convention.)
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
The critical statement: In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivists certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive. I read this as rescission of prior ratification have no legal basis. Once a state ratifies, and that ratification is certified, it is permanent. This being the case, if Illinois current resolution passes, it most likely means that an Article V convention will be called. Importantly, wherever the convention is held will have to have the tightest security the US has ever seen for such an event. Every spy on the planet and our federal government, every terroristfrom our federal government, every corporation, and a whole bunch of others from our federal government will do anything to penetrate it.
20 posted on
04/11/2014 10:04:58 PM PDT by
kvanbrunt2
(civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson