Convention of States

[Gary J]

A convention is a two edged sword. The proponents of the convention might find they were in a minority in the body and see their favourite amendments rejected and ideas they despised be adopted.

There are also problems with the ground rules.

1. Who would select the delegates? The state legislatures did in 1787, but would some states today prefer popular election?

2. How many delegates would each state get? Would the delegation vote as individuals or be subject to a unit rule? The precedent of 1787 was that each state sent as many delegates as it liked, but that each state had one vote to be cast as the majority of the state's delegates present and voting preferred. If the delegate votes were equal, then the state vote was not cast.

Would CA and TX be content to have the same voting weight as WY and VT?

3. Would the convention be limited to proposing amendments on the subjects referred to by the state requests for the convention? Could it propose other amendments or write a completely new constitution? The precedent of 1787 suggests that the convention could decide to write a new constitution.

4. Would amendments or a new constitutional text be proposed by a simple majority or require a two-thirds vote (whether of states or individual delegates)?

5. Would the amendments have to be ratified under the terms of the 1787 constitution or should a new method of ratification be proposed?

6. How would Congress react to something like a new constitution with a new ratifying method? Perhaps not as compliantly as the Continental Congress did in 1787.

7. If a new constitution was ratified, would the states that declined to ratify be bound by it? The 1787 constitution only applied to the states which had ratified it. It took a few years for NC and RI to accept the new constitution.