Forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800 From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org> Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis

Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen. The current constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles.

Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were faulty and needed replacement. Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and precedence.

Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the amendments. I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using the legislature method.

Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying their submission and implimentation mechanism? ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------