[EL] Constitutional conventions

[Schultz, David A.]

Dear Mr.  Snider:

Your points are well-taken but do not distract from my core arguments.
However, thank you for your comments.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:45 PM, J.H. Snider <snider at isolon.org> wrote:

> Two points:
>
>
>
> Bill, while it is true that “state constitutions of recent vintage have
> been overly legislative and needlessly technical,” it is not true that the
> cause of that bloat was state constitutional conventions, as your comment
> implies. To the contrary, the state constitutional conventions held during
> the last half of the 20th Century for the most part resulted in a
> dramatic streamlining of state constitutions. To my knowledge, no state
> legislature can boast of a similar accomplishment.
>
>
>
> David, Sandy Levinson agrees with your Article V ambiguity analysis but
> comes to a very different conclusion.  I suggest that you wrestle with his
> argument.  Also, during 1933 and 1934, 39 states held state constitutional
> conventions on whether to appeal the 21st Amendment. I suggest that in
> your analysis you distinguish between proposing and ratifying
> constitutional conventions. There is much less ambiguity about ratifying
> conventions, since we’ve had 52 of them since 1787, as opposed to only one
> proposing convention.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> J.H. Snider, Editor
>
> The State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse <http://concon.info/>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
> *On Behalf Of *Bill Maurer
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:58 PM
> *To:* Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Constitutional conventions
>
>
>
> Excellent piece, Professor. I would add that state constitutions of recent
> vintage have been overly legislative and needlessly technical. A national
> convention would likely produce a similarly bloated and inflexible
> document, as the delegates attempt to freeze in place specific policy
> preferences and approaches. Instead of a broad guideline for the conduct of
> government, we’d run the risk of getting a phonebook-sized mess that would
> quickly become outdated and unworkable.
>
>
>
> Bill Maurer
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
> *Sent: *Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:41 AM
> *To: *law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] Constitutional conventions
>
>
>
> An oped I did on constitutional conventions.
>
>
>
> https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/18/david-schultz-why-
> a-constitutional-convention-is-a-bad-idea/
>



-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180319/8bf8bbc5/attachment.html>