Congresswoman Susan Davis (CA) recently said "We have triggered Article V" I'm trying to figure out what she meant by that. Our politicians are insane.
States convention needs to happen for Amendments for term limits of the US congress, a balanced budget of the federal govt. and most important is limit the executive orders of the president!!!!!!!
Professor Rappaport is wrong. The states cannot have a Constitutional Convention because we already had one. 2/3 of the states can have a convention or meeting to discuss and propose amendments to the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention would be a complete rewrite ground up.
While most activists prefer other terms, unfortunately, the term "constitutional convention" has been used for all types of conventions that play a role in the process of altering a constitution in the professional literature dating back about 200 years, at least since Jameson. He distinguished between these different types of conventions, but he did so using totally different terminology than most use today. It makes the confusion hard to avoid. I have learned to stop harping on people who fail to make the distinction in their terminology, as long as they make the distinction in their analysis, which Rappaport does.
Congresswoman Susan Davis (CA) recently said "We have triggered Article V" I'm trying to figure out what she meant by that. Our politicians are insane.
States convention needs to happen for Amendments for term limits of the US congress, a balanced budget of the federal govt. and most important is limit the executive orders of the president!!!!!!!
First!!! I love you khan academy!
Feels about right for another wave of amendments.
could the Kahn Academy have any connection to the khan family dynasty?
If there was, so what?
How do you like this for an amendment? Move voting day to April 16
The problem is you try and go around it . The constitution protects the people from the government. So going around it is criminal.
Yesss thx
Professor Rappaport is wrong. The states cannot have a Constitutional Convention because we already had one. 2/3 of the states can have a convention or meeting to discuss and propose amendments to the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention would be a complete rewrite ground up.
good point, i failed to catch that. i guess we call it a "convention of states" these days
While most activists prefer other terms, unfortunately, the term "constitutional convention" has been used for all types of conventions that play a role in the process of altering a constitution in the professional literature dating back about 200 years, at least since Jameson. He distinguished between these different types of conventions, but he did so using totally different terminology than most use today. It makes the confusion hard to avoid. I have learned to stop harping on people who fail to make the distinction in their terminology, as long as they make the distinction in their analysis, which Rappaport does.
No. The Constitution does provide for a Convention. Or it doesn't say there can't be one!