Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Con-Con Information Wanted
Message-ID: <685@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Nov-83 13:55:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.685
Posted: Fri Nov  4 13:55:54 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 02:47:01 EST
References: <746@ihuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 40

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.