On 981125, Jim Choate wrote:
Why is this problematic?
Whether it's problematic or not depends on your goals. It gives reason to doubt that your interpretation of the effects of a Convention called under the current constitution would hold, as (as you now say), such a Convention has the power to change the rules by definition.
It's important to remember as well that the original Constitution had to be ratified by all 13 original states and not simply 3/4 of them. The choice was unanimous.
It didn't have to be: 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. There was a time period (I don't know how long, but certainly no more than a few months) where some states were operating underthe Constitution and others were still under the Acts.
So, however the bill get's to Congress they must specify a method for the states to enact. Now the question is how long does Congress get?
I don't think it specifies, but what has always happened is that the *same resolution* which proposes the amendment specifies which ratification method will be used.
If Congress sits around and does nothing can it stall long enough that they can kill the amendment process by their own internal procedures?
There's only a time limit because Congress has started specifying one, in the same resolution which proposes the amendment and specifies the ratification method. (Exception: in the case of the ERA, I believe they later extended the limit). The power to specify a time limit isn't mentioned in the Constitution as you note, but has also never been tested. -- ICQ UIN: 45940202