Hi, Thom. Thanks for including all of the facts about a Convention of the States, many of which are omitted in discussions of such a convention.
Importantly, as you note, amendments to the Constitution require ratification of by thirty-eight (38) state legislatures. Given current partisan control of state legislatures (28R/19D/2split), th…
Hi, Thom. Thanks for including all of the facts about a Convention of the States, many of which are omitted in discussions of such a convention.
Importantly, as you note, amendments to the Constitution require ratification of by thirty-eight (38) state legislatures. Given current partisan control of state legislatures (28R/19D/2split), that would mean that ten (10) legislatures CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS would need to approve any amendment in order for it to become effective. See State Partisan Composition (ncsl.org).
Thus, the ratification requirement gives Democrats iron-clad control over which amendments from a "rogue" Convention of the States would become part of the Constitution.
I believe that any discussion of the effort to call a Convention of the States should highlight the need for approval from ten Democratically controlled state legislatures to ratify an amendment.
The ratification discussion is frequently confused with the threshold for convening a Convention of States, which is 34. Convening the convention is not enough to enact amendments. Any proposed amendment would still require ratification by 38 states, which would require ratification by 10 state legislatures controlled by Democrats.
Thank you, Robert. I would note, since the release of yesterday’s Hartmann Report, I’ve heard from several alarmed people. Having neither read the Report nor your comment until early this morning, I could rely only on my sense that sufficient checks still existed to guard against an expedited call for a Convention of the States. While I’m thankful for your explicit explanation, admittedly, I’m more grateful for Today’s Edition Newsletter, which keeps me focused on the task at hand in lieu of spending calories on seeming threats that detract from the real work.
Hi, Thom. Thanks for including all of the facts about a Convention of the States, many of which are omitted in discussions of such a convention.
Importantly, as you note, amendments to the Constitution require ratification of by thirty-eight (38) state legislatures. Given current partisan control of state legislatures (28R/19D/2split), that would mean that ten (10) legislatures CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS would need to approve any amendment in order for it to become effective. See State Partisan Composition (ncsl.org).
Thus, the ratification requirement gives Democrats iron-clad control over which amendments from a "rogue" Convention of the States would become part of the Constitution.
I believe that any discussion of the effort to call a Convention of the States should highlight the need for approval from ten Democratically controlled state legislatures to ratify an amendment.
The ratification discussion is frequently confused with the threshold for convening a Convention of States, which is 34. Convening the convention is not enough to enact amendments. Any proposed amendment would still require ratification by 38 states, which would require ratification by 10 state legislatures controlled by Democrats.
Thank you, Robert. I would note, since the release of yesterday’s Hartmann Report, I’ve heard from several alarmed people. Having neither read the Report nor your comment until early this morning, I could rely only on my sense that sufficient checks still existed to guard against an expedited call for a Convention of the States. While I’m thankful for your explicit explanation, admittedly, I’m more grateful for Today’s Edition Newsletter, which keeps me focused on the task at hand in lieu of spending calories on seeming threats that detract from the real work.