85 Caplan Constitutional Brinksmanship pp 83 85 86 See above under Balanced

85 caplan constitutional brinksmanship pp 83 85 86

This preview shows page 22 - 24 out of 25 pages.

85 Caplan, Constitutional Brinksmanship, pp. 83-85. 86 See above under “Balanced Budget Amendment” for FOAVC’s list of state rescissions. 87 Dwight Connely, “Amending the Constitution: Is This Any Way to Call for a Constitutional Convention?” Arizona Law Review , volume 22, issue 4, 1980, pp.1033-1034. 88 Coleman v. Miller , 307 U.S. 433 (1939) at 450. The political question doctrine refers to policy issues in which the courts, or specifically the Supreme Court, have declined to decide, on the grounds that political questions are properly resolved in the political process, not by judicial ruling. 89 Is There a Constitutional Convention in America’s Future? , p. 6.
Image of page 22
The Article V Convention: Historical Perspectives for Congress Congressional Research Service 20 Submitting the Applications to Congress The final action by a state legislature that has approved an application for an Article V Convention is to transmit news of its action to the appropriate authorities. The Constitution offers no advice on this question, and in fact, the House Judiciary Committee’s 1993 report noted that states had sent applications for a balanced budget convention to a wide range of congressional officials, including the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore of the Senate, both sets of congressional officials, other officials, the Library of Congress, and “to no one in particular.” According to the report, there were even instances in which applications were not forwarded by the states. 90 For the record, many of the state petitions printed in the Congressional Record that were reviewed by the author of this report specifically noted that copies would also be delivered to the Senators and Representatives of the state’s congressional delegation. So, the final decisions are currently made by the officers of the state legislatures themselves. Congress could establish regular procedures for transmission, recordation, and retention of state applications, and an argument can be made that more information is better in this instance. The Speaker and Clerk of the House, the Vice President, President Pro-Tempore, Secretary of the Senate, and the Archivist of the United States would be perhaps the most obvious candidates to be recipients of Article V Convention applications. In addition, notification of a state’s Senators and Representatives, as has been done in some earlier instances, might also be considered a courtesy, particularly in light of the fact that members of the state’s congressional delegation could serve as well-placed advocates for the Article V Convention. A Role for the State Governor? Do the state governors have any responsibilities in the Article V state petition process? The balance of opinion on this question is that they do not. The House Judiciary Committee’s 1993 study states that “[w]hen article V specifies that a Convention be called ‘upon the applications of the legislatures ,’ that is exactly what it means (emphasis added).” 91 The Supreme Court’s 1798 decision in Hollingsworth v. Virginia
Image of page 23
Image of page 24

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 25 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes