May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
This column also appears at CNSNews. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. But has anyone listed the exclusive powers of states—the realm the federal government may not invade without violating the Constitution? When discussing state authority, the Founders usually pointed out only that the federal government’s powers were, as Madison said, “few
READ MOREChief Justice John Marshall (in office 1801-1835) is often identified with an expansive “big government” interpretation of the Constitution. Fans of big government cite him as an ally; opponents as an enemy. This view of Marshall is a caricature. It is true that Marshall was a Federalist—he occupied a place on the political spectrum of
READ MOREOne of the far-fetched arguments used to persuade conservatives to oppose an amendments convention is that if 34 states apply, a left-wing Congress might try to dictate that commissioners (delegates) be allocated by population rather than by one state/one vote. For reasons explained in earlier posts, such a move would be unconstitutional: A “convention for
READ MORESome people have asked for further clarification on why the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause does not grant Congress power to use its convention call to regulate a Convention for Proposing Amendments. This is a technical area and can be difficult to grasp (or explain, for that matter). You have to understand the nature of
READ MOREA little known aspect of our Constitution is that it delegates power, not just to the U.S. Government and to its units, but also to persons and entities outside the U.S. Government. In each case, the power to act is derived ultimately from the Constitution. Even when those persons or entities are states or officeholders
READ MORENote: This article was first published at cns news. There is a common media myth that the current U.S. Supreme Court, or at least a majority of the current justices, is “conservative.” But if a “conservative” justice is one who consistently interprets the Constitution in accordance with traditional methods of judging—as the Founders intended for
READ MORE