Talk:State ratifying conventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How chosen[edit]

Does it say how this convention is chosen? --Apoc2400 05:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to differ on a state-to-state basis. It's only been used once, and I'm not sure how it was done at that time (i.e. repeal of the 18th Amendment). But I found a couple of examples and have amended :) the article. Asav (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I have made substantial changes to this article, but I want to point two out specifically. The section on how state conventions work was inaccurate and poorly sourced. The section treated such conventions as though they happen all the time. In fact, all we know is what happened with the 21st Amendment and what state laws say, if anything. At best, the section was heavily a section on what would happen in Ohio if an amendment were proposed for ratification by conventions. The other significant change was to eliminate the discussion of how state ratifying conventions differ from constitutional conventions. In the first instance, the text was inaccurate. Constitutional conventions are called to draft amendments and new constitutions. The text only stated the latter. More importantly, there is no reason for devoting even as much as two sentences to the distinction as state ratifying conventions have no role in proposing amendments or constitutions. -Rrius (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All of these amendments(which goes over 100) are all very important to the states survival. Arizona has over 300 hundred amendments(that's alot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.181.126 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would love to know what that was supposed to mean, if anything. -Rrius (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Me, too. Captain Quirk (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Amendment-proposal conventions[edit]

What's the difference between this and a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution? Hairy Dude (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

These are conventions called in each state to ratify amendments proposed either by Congress or a national convention of the sort you linked to. More simply, you linked to a "step 1" convention, whereas this articles deals with "step 2" conventions. -Rrius (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How do conventions work?[edit]

I read the section 'Rewrite' above, which says that some text about how conventions work has been removed. I understand the motivation - that such a thing has only happened once so far - but still I would like to know how the conventions for the 21st amendment were organized. Who goes there? Who is invited? Is there discussion or just a vote? KarlFrei (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Process of ratifying conventions[edit]

Understanding this amendment process is impossible without understanding the processes of formation and operation of the state ratifying conventions. Not to hurt anybody's feelings, and thanks for what is written so far, but the article so far is clearly inadequate, as there is no treatment of this question.

Here are a few starting points: Are the processes determined by federal law, or by state constitutions or state laws? Are there states without a defined process? If this amendment process is meant to allow bypassing of state legislatures, can we expect the state legislatures to pass good laws defining the process? Is it easy or possible under any circumstances to "railroad" ratification in a state, meaning can some group supporting the amendment simply gather enough of a gang in favor of the amendment, get together and approve it, in that way stealing the state's or people's authority? Or could a group opposed to the amendment get hold of the process and pack the convention with those opposed? Those are a few things that quickly spring into the mind of a non-expert.

By the way, this calls to mind the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. The Honduran national legislature is given authority by the constitution to amend the constitution, but there is no provision for a constitutional convention. There was an attempt to call such a convention, the attempt arguably being an illegal attempt to destroy the existing constitution.

Thanks for any help in answering these questions.CountMacula (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)