States are starting to call for a Constitutional Convention

[Northern_Piper]

@That_Don_Guy

Excuse me? You might want to read Article V of the Constitution again.

“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…”

A Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the states as provided for by the Constitution is very much so subject to the 3/4 rule. If the states want to call a separate convention to replace the Constitution, that’s another matter, but whether or not they’re allowed to do that is another story.

The only precedent for a constitutional convention in the US did exactly what you’re saying a constitutional convention cannot do: it ignored the amending formula under which it was constituted, which would have required unanimous agreement by the Congress and the states, and created a new amending formula, namely ratification by nine states.

[QUOTE=Articles of Confederation]
XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
[/QUOTE]

[T.M]

I know nothing about your constitution but advise caution, many years ago some one wanted to make a change to a law in the U.K it made sense and looked like a minor change, but the effects would have been like a snow ball rolling through U.K. law, far from being simple its effects would have been very complex

[lance_strongarm]

@Peremensoe

Certainly. That’s why it’s very far from ideal that the same particular states should always be in front for primaries.

It does not follow that testing candidates against successive, somewhat different subsets of the national electorate is a bad idea.

I agree. I was referring to the idea that a candidate should campaign in all states. It’s not the state you live in that matters much any more. Candidates appeal to voters by their interests, and those interests cross state lines.

[lance_strongarm]

@Northern_Piper

The only precedent for a constitutional convention in the US did exactly what you’re saying a constitutional convention cannot do: it ignored the amending formula under which it was constituted, which would have required unanimous agreement by the Congress and the states, and created a new amending formula, namely ratification by nine states.

True, but one could argue that the ratification by nine states made the new Constitution a thing, but only for the nine states. Ratification by the rest of the states was simply an act of them “joining” the new Union created by the first nine.

[Northern_Piper]

Yes, but it is a precedent, the only one, for a constitutional convention ignoring the amending procedure under which it was supposedly operating.

[lance_strongarm]

@Northern_Piper

Yes, but it is a precedent, the only one, for a constitutional convention ignoring the amending procedure under which it was supposedly operating.

True.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@T.M

I know nothing about your constitution but advise caution, many years ago some one wanted to make a change to a law in the U.K it made sense and looked like a minor change, but the effects would have been like a snow ball rolling through U.K. law, far from being simple its effects would have been very complex

Well, I’m sold. No more legislation, ever.

[watchwolf49]

@T.M

I know nothing about your constitution but advise caution, many years ago some one wanted to make a change to a law in the U.K it made sense and looked like a minor change, but the effects would have been like a snow ball rolling through U.K. law, far from being simple its effects would have been very complex

I was not aware rolling snowballs was once illegal in the UK … meh …

[Saint_Cad]

@RickJay

The vote as such was eventually unanimous though, as required by the Articles of Confederation;

Nope. The Constitution was a new document and only needed to be ratified by 9 states.

That goes for you Martin Hyde and remember Rhode Island and Providence Plantations did not ratify the Constitution while it was lacking the Bill of Rights.

[QUOTE=Article VII]
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
[/QUOTE]

According to this site, enough states have petitioned Congress for an Article V Convention but Congress conveniently interprets the requirements so that it does not have to call one as required.

[lance_strongarm]

@T.M

I know nothing about your constitution but advise caution, many years ago some one wanted to make a change to a law in the U.K it made sense and looked like a minor change, but the effects would have been like a snow ball rolling through U.K. law, far from being simple its effects would have been very complex

That snowball rolled right down that slope and it wasn’t even that slippery!

[lance_strongarm]

@Saint_Cad

Nope. The Constitution was a new document and only needed to be ratified by 9 states.

His point is that it was ratified by all 13 anyway so one could pretend the Articles were complied with.

[Saint_Cad]

@lance_strongarm

His point is that it was ratified by all 13 anyway so one could pretend the Articles were complied with.

Ummm … not exactly. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations did not ratify until May 29, 1790. If you want to be pedantic and say the Constitution did not take effect until all of the states ratified it under the rules of the AoC then you need to throw out all governmental actions taken before that date including all laws passed by the First Congress until that day and the election of George Washington as President.

[watchwolf49]

The first thing Congress did was count the electoral votes and certified George Washington as President … April 6th, 1789 … Here’s the text of the first ever law (June 1st, 1789).

[Saint_Cad]

@watchwolf49

The first thing Congress did was count the electoral votes and certified George Washington as President … April 6th, 1789 … Here’s the text of the first ever law (June 1st, 1789).

Right but if the Constitution needed 13 states to ratify under the AoC and not 9 states under Article VII then the Constitution (and hence the federal government we know and love today) did not exist legally until May 29, 1790.

[drewder]

@octopus

Why do you all fear democracy?

Because democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

[Trinopus]

Or even three sheep and a wolf. “We’re having grass. Get used to it.”

This is why we’re a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution limits the excesses of the popular will. That’s a feature, not a bug.

[lance_strongarm]

@Saint_Cad

Ummm … not exactly. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations did not ratify until May 29, 1790. If you want to be pedantic and say the Constitution did not take effect until all of the states ratified it under the rules of the AoC then you need to throw out all governmental actions taken before that date including all laws passed by the First Congress until that day and the election of George Washington as President.

I didn’t say the Constitution did not take effect until all of the states ratified it. I said the opposite. The Constitution took effect when nine states ratified it, and then the last four “joined” the union that then existed under the new Constitution, by ratifying it themselves.

Rhode Island did not have a representative in Congress until after it ratified. Technically there weren’t 13 states in the Union when the first Congress convened.

[Martin_Hyde]

@lance_strongarm

I didn’t say the Constitution did not take effect until all of the states ratified it. I said the opposite. The Constitution took effect when nine states ratified it, and then the last four “joined” the union that then existed under the new Constitution, by ratifying it themselves.

Rhode Island did not have a representative in Congress until after it ratified. Technically there weren’t 13 states in the Union when the first Congress convened.

There were still 13 states in the United States–the term United States also covers the confederation government and goes back to 1776. The situation with the two final states (only two had failed to sign by the time the actual mechanisms of new government had started up) was one in which they still were part of the country but held they were bound by the Articles of Confederation but not the Constitution. You know this is true because they expected they wouldn’t have to pay tariffs on their goods as a foreign country, and for a little while there was an uneasy truce over that.

[Deeg]

@Trinopus

Or even three sheep and a wolf. “We’re having grass. Get used to it.”

This is why we’re a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution limits the excesses of the popular will. That’s a feature, not a bug.

Democracy and republic are not exclusive. We are a democratic republic.

[lance_strongarm]

@Martin_Hyde

There were still 13 states in the United States–the term United States also covers the confederation government and goes back to 1776. The situation with the two final states (only two had failed to sign by the time the actual mechanisms of new government had started up) was one in which they still were part of the country but held they were bound by the Articles of Confederation but not the Constitution. You know this is true because they expected they wouldn’t have to pay tariffs on their goods as a foreign country, and for a little while there was an uneasy truce over that.

That’s fine. I was just pointing out how the Constitution and its ratification by only 9 states to become effective wasn’t inconsistent with the Articles of Confederation.

But in a way, we had two different United States in that short period, or one with two different national governments.