krista@ihuxr.UUCP (k.j.anderson) (11/04/83)
My Voice of Reason newsletter says that Missouri became the thirty-
second state to pass the resolution to hold a second constitutional
convention(con-con), the first one having been in 1787. It says that
supporters are working on Washington and California to be the final two
to pass it. Does anyone know which states have passed the resolution so
far? Where the constitution will be rewritten? Who will be present, in
charge and so on? This con-con resolution at a time when right-wing
constituents are so powerful has me worried!
Sorry to diverge but I don't know what to think about Grenada except
that the greatest tragedy of war is that the civilians who suffer have
little if anything to do with the politics that lead to violence.
k.j.anderson, ihuxr!kristasmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/04/83)
In point of fact, no one knows who would attend a new constitutional convention, who would preside, etc. In fact, that's one reason many folks are opposed to it. (For those who came in late: the Constitution permits two methods of proposing amendments to the states. First, they can be passed by both houses of Congress (I believe by a two-thirds vot); second, they can be passed by a constitutional convention if such a convention is called for by two thirds of the states. In either event, any such amendments must still be ratified by three fourths of the states. That, too, can be done either by the state legislatures, or by special ratification conventions held in each state; the method is specified in the proposed amendment. State conventions have been used only once, to repeal Prohibition. A constitutional convention has never been called since our current version was adopted.) It isn't clear, though, whether or not such a convention will actually take place. First, many of the resolutions calling for one specify that it must be limited to considering a balanced-budget amendment. It isn't clear that a constitutional convention can be limited, and hence the legal status of a resolution that requires it is in doubt. Some states have taken a different tack (North Carolina is the only one that comes to mind, but I'm fairly sure there are others); their resolutions say that their call for a convention is null and void if the convention *isn't* limited. A second obstacle is the (likely) requirement that such calls for a con- vention be "reasonably contemporaneous". That is, the Supreme Court has held that ratification votes for an amendment must be within a few years of each other, so that they represent the wishes of the states at about the same time. (In recent years, an explicit time limit has usually be attached to proposed amendments, typically seven years.) I've been hearing about this convention for long enough that I would expect that some of the resolutions requesting one would have expired; in any event, some would certainly be challenged by groups (primarily liberal) opposed to a new constitutional convention. --Steve Bellovin Oh yes -- in response to the original question about how to get information on its status, I'd suggest contacting the ACLU or the League of Women Voters.