Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Irwin
Obviously a call from, say, Tennessee in 1895 isn't going to be used to support the 34-state requirement in 2008.
|
Why would you say that? There's nothing preventing such an action. After all, the 27th amendment had been floating around since it was introduced on 9/25/1789, until finally ratified on 5/7/1992.
It's like the rescission of a call. Nothing says it can be rescinded, and nothing says it can't. You will find legal scholars for both schools of thought.
If one is to use precedent, then amendment 27 (originally amendment #2 of the proposed amendments) sets the standard. A call for a con-con is valid until rescinded by the State that called it.
(Bonus points for anyone who knows what the original amendment #1 was - oh, it's still "out there")
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 44capnball
Ok, that's sort of what I was getting at. Supposing they said, we hereby call for a con con. Because, uh, we need a balanced budget. Yeah that's the ticket... (I mean doesn't there have to be a token reason for the call?)
|
Nothing in the constitutional text alludes to having a call for any specific reason other than to have a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution.