Replies

Asserting that “only a federal agency (Congress, as provided by the Constitution) is competent to propose” amendments, he claimed that the convention procedure should be disregarded as “no longer of any effect.” Thus, Swindler suggested that if the requisite number of state applications was reached, Congress should simply ignore its duty to call a convention. Alternatively, Swindler wrote, Congress could gerrymander the convention and/or prescribe rules that would render its operation impossible. For example, he suggested that Congress mandate a rule that convention delegates were not permitted to propose any amendment unless they did so unanimously. He also argued that the courts should determine which states had permission to participate in the process and which states did not.

Those of us who have familiarized themselves with the materials provided by Publius are not at all surprised by the nature of the objections to the Article V amendment process.

Indeed, history has shown that Congress will avoid calling such a convention by simply ignoring the vote tally of the states or by citing some contrived objection. Certainly, Congress will act (or in this case more likely fail to act) to protect its powers which really means to protect its usurpations of the Constitution. Among those stratagems we expect Congress to employ include imposing restrictions on the nature of the convention and the identity of the delegates. Probably the gravest threat would be an attempt to impose a one man, one vote on the convention process which might find support in the courts.

In any event all this is thoroughly aired by Publius and by the materials he has so thoughtfully provided for us. We are not naïve but neither are we daunted.

A sixth legislative chamber just yesterday passed a convention of states resolution.

The feds don’t want to fix themselves and don’t want anyone else fixing them.

You can add Post #21 to the standard information as to the ins and outs of a convention.