[EL] Constitutional conventions

[Bill Maurer]

J.H.,

True, older constitutions also had a tendency towards bloat and were worse than the documents that replaced them (which was likely a reason for a constitutional convention in the first instance). Technical provisions in the new constitutions were sometimes just carried over from the older documents as well. However, I think it still highly likely that a new federal constitution would feature similar attempts to constitutionalize policy preferences, limit legislative flexibility, and mandate specific approaches to issues that may quickly become outmoded.

Bill

From: J.H. Snider <snider at isolon.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 6:46 PM
To: Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org>; Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Constitutional conventions

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<mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu>>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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.<mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:41 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180319/1fd1c71d/attachment.html>