I’ve read that a constitutional amendment has never been passed by a convention of the states, because at a certain point, Congress realizes that convention is about to bypass them, and they step forward and act themselves.
Can someone tell me historically how many states were on board when Congress has made such past actions?
If you give us examples of specific incidents you feel fit this pattern we may be able to come up with something. I, for one, have never encountered this idea in all my reading of history.
In that case I withdraw my question, I just heard that past attempts at passing amendments through state conventions were accelerated upon congressional action, but maybe I was wrong.
I believe the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators) was passed by Congress due to the real threat of a Convention. List of all of the applications under Article V. Warming - badly designed webpage.
A quick reading of the Wikipedia article states that it has happened. I don’t have time to dig through the cites for accuracy, though.
The problem with a constitutional convention, IIRC, is that the constitution is vaguely worded. I thought I read somewhere once that even though a convention can be convened (?) to address an issue, once assembled the members could be free, according to some interpretations, to make any amendments on any issue they want. As such it would be a loose canon.
It is a horribly designed page, but if you count it up, it looks like there were more than 30 calls for direct election of the senate between 1893 and 1911. (Wikipedia says 31.) The 17th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1912 and ratified in 1913.
But any amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. So even if we had a runaway convention that proposed an amendment requiring all Americans to keep squirrels for farming purposes, it doesn’t become part of the constitution.
It’s vague on other stuff too. Like who get’s to decide how delegates are chosen, or how many delegates does each state get.
Exactly. This actually did happen once, with exactly this result, taken to extremes. It was in 1787. The mandate of that convention was to amend the existing “constitution” (called the “Articles of Confederation”) to patch up some of the problem areas that had arisen. They ended up amending it beyond recognition, giving us the Constitution we now have to this day.
I remember it being mentioned in my US Gov class, just like md2000 implies: If we were to have another such convention, nothing would prevent them from doing the same thing again. (Except, of course, the probably impossible task of getting enough states to ratify the changes.)
It was easier where there were only 13 states in a new country only 11 years old. In practice, it’s doubtful that a Constitutional Convention could ever happen today. So even though the threat is kicked around every once in a while, I doubt such a threat could ever be taken seriously today.
I think that a constitutional convention for just one amendment is a bit much. The standard practice/prescription is to have one state pass it, and then go around to all of the other state legislatures with the same amendment and have them pass same. That’s probably why no convention has ever been held. No need for a convention.
The only times it could happen are for amendments that are wildly popular with the people and/or states but unpopular with Congress so that the latter would never pass it by 2/3ds. The popular election of Senators was one such thing. Imagine a U.S. Senate filled with men who are in that position only because of their clout with the state legislature who would never have a chance if the vote was put to the people. If 1/3 +1 vote of the Senate could get on board, the amendment could NEVER ,under any circumstances, pass without the convention route.
In the early 90s, I had heard that a Balanced Budget Amendment was such a thing, but that seems to have fizzled.
The provision is a backstop against Congress having a final veto over any amendment that would effect them.
IIRC, the last amendment was passed by the method that I outlined.
At any rate, the whole point was that there at least 2 methods for an Amendment to pass before even needing to think about a CC.
Also, the Supreme Court could forestall same by either ruling for/against the ignition point of a CC, or could declare something unconstitutional, and sic the DOJ on them.
No, this is not correct. Individual states cannot propose amendments. There are only two ways:
Or
Then, the amendment must be approved by at least three-quarters of the state legislatures;
Or
By conventions in each state: again, three-quarter of each state must approve.
[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution, Article V]
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
[/QUOTE]
So, more succinctly:
A. Amendment is proposed
1. By 2/3 of each House of Congress
2. By a national convention called by 2/3 of the States
B. Congress determines the method of ratification (can be done in step (A)(1)) between:
1. 3/4 of state legislatures
2. 3/4 of state conventions
HOWEVER, no amendment may deprive a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.
—This raises an interesting question of “What if Congress fails to authorize either method?” May it veto an amendment that way?
nm
You right, me wrong. :smack:
Bumped.
Just got a letter addressed to “Dear Fellow Conservative” (I’m not) from “Convention of States Action” (an unfortunate acronym, given the events of 1861-1865) of Merrifield, Va. The letter calls for a new constitutional convention under Art. V. Goals: Congressional term limits, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and “giving states the power to override abusive executive orders, federal regulations, and Supreme Court decisions.” Among its backers: Glenn Beck, Tom Coburn, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. For more: http://www.conventionofstates.com/
Dumb idea and dumb people. I’ll pass.
I don’t know, term limits across the board might be a good things. It doesn’t work well for states to do it on their own but restricting the time any congressperson or Senator can serve would probably be good.
I know why the Balanced Budget Amendment won’t work but it would be good to build up to it with declared war being the only exception.
I do strongly dislike the “giving states the power to override abusive executive orders, federal regulations, and Supreme Court decisions” part though. I guess I am not in any way a states right person. I dislike the way the setup of the electoral college system for President and 2 Senators per state give disproportional say to the good citizens of sparsely populated states. Also the specifically quoted phrase sounds like it came directly from the racists of the sixties.
One person’s abuse is another person’s foreplay.
How would you define “abusive” to make it work? That’s the dumbest part of the idea.
What does a balanced budget mean in practical terms? The economy goes in the toilet, and suddenly everyone is paying three times as much in taxes to make up for the shortfall? Wheel the Medicare patients out the door and dump them on the sidewalk?