> “Natelson’s rules allow for the appointment of “ad hoc committees,” which are appointed by any standing committee in order to enable it to execute its business. The ad hoc committees do not have a license to work on any business beyond the scope of the business of the standing committee that appointed them.”
That is correct except that the rules stipulate that the Convention may create them, not just the standing committees.
> “On that basis, I would have to conclude that ad hoc committees have no plenary power of their own; their work is confined to the mission of the standing committee that appointed them. And this means that no ad hoc committee has the power to “ultimately debate whatever it wishes to debate.””
No matter, it is moot. Committees do not vote for the entire assembly, the Convention as it is. Committees work to reach agreement and consensus. They then report to the entire assembly. Motions follow to vote on findings of committees or for any motion brought by any commissioner (member of the assembly).
Hypothetically and absurdly, should the Convention create an ad hoc committee to explore for example replacing the US Constitution with Islamic Sharia Law, and such committee brings its finding to the Convention floor on a motion for a vote, a member need only raise a point of order that the proposed vote is out of scope with the Conventions subject matter. The President can either strike the motion for vote or defer it to the Rules Committee, all without debate. If there is an appeal of the President’s decision, the appeal will likely go to the Rules Committee. In any case the motion dies or the Rules Committee returns its finding. All of the above is based on a hypothetical absurdity which has probability zero.
The above combined with strict time limits of the Convention’s proceedings makes it impossible for the Convention to become uncontrolled.
Nattelson et al have done a stellar job amassing the history of conventions and the principles of good order to create a set of rules that will keep the COS on track addressing the mandatory subject areas.
Jeepers, I missed that part, on my first reading. But you're right. Natelson's proposed rules permit the creation of any ad hoc committee by majority vote of the Convention, provided that such a vote can occur only when a quorum of 26 state delegations are present to do business. If not, adjournment to the next day is required.
So this would mean that you only need 14 out of 34 state delegations to establish an ad hoc committee, which may or may not correspond in any way with the Convention CALL. So, it is possible that such "side issues" as the adoption of Sharia law, or of a marriage amendment, could get legitimate standing at the COS.
But whatever such an ad hoc committee ends up proposing, its findings and recommendations are still subject to a simple majority of the affirmative votes of 34 states, one vote per state delegation, before they can take effect as a proposed constitutional amendment. And then, they would have to survive the ratification process, requiring the assent of 38 states, not all of which have directly participated in the Convention.
Thank you ever so much, dear Hostage, for all the diligent research and "constitutional imagination" that you bring to bear on the language and scope of the CALL for an Article V COS. Which is a two-way CALL: first by the States; then by Congress in constitutional response.
THANK YOU!!!