9 Comments

Also enjoy your articles Robert, very reassuring. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Also Robert there have been some articles talking about Republicans using some cockamamie legal maneuver of using state's past calls for a constitutional convention to call one now?

There was an article about it in the New York times a few weeks back.

Expand full comment

Oh okay. Found the article. They say that 9 Democrat states have already rescinded their request for a convention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/us/a-constitutional-convention-some-democrats-fear-its-coming.html

There are 19 of them altogether now. And 17 would be enough to stop such a convention.

There's a site here keeps track of the ones outstanding. You can sort it by state by clicking on the state column and look for the ones with a No meaning unlimited convention.

Combining that with my list,

California will repeal

Colorado - all repealed

Connecticut - not

Delaware - all repealed

Illinois - not

Maine - not

Maryland - all repealed

Massachusets - not

Nevada - all repealed

New Jersey - all repealed

New Mexico - all rescinded

New York - all repealed

Oregon - all repealed

Rhode Island - all remaining ones limited

Vermont - not

Virginia - all repealed

Washington - not

.

http://article5library.org/apptable.php?type=Application&sort=S&order=A

So there are 6 left Connecticut, Illiniois, Maine, Massachusets, Vermont and Washington.

4 of those need to rescind their requests to prevent even the minutest chance of such a convention.

But also - any such convention could rewrite the constitution but then all the changes would need to be ratified.

It would only take 13 states with at least one chamber opposed to prevent ratification. So that will never happen.

So the worst case here is a pointless convention that hits the news with a lot of publicitly that makes a major rewrite that can never be ratified.

But 6 Democrat states would be enough to prevent that.

Also there are only 23 in the list that have at least one request with "No" under limited. leaving out California again assuming it does rescind.

So they would need to get another 11 calls for a

convention, plenty of time for the 6 remaining Democrat ones to rescind.

Plus it is probably not legal anyway because most likely the courts would decide that they all have to be calls for the same type of convention.

E.g. that a call for a convention for a Balanced budget shouldn't be also counted as a call for a convention on Right for Life, say.

So I think they are just being supercautious by rescinding.

But certainly something to cover I should add a section about it, meanwhile this comment thread will do :).

Expand full comment

Updated the article. I'd made a mistake in the graphic said there are 19 states with both chambers Democrat sorry it's 17. 20 once you included the divided ones. So all 6 of the ones that haven't rescinded yet would need to rescind for that hypothetical scenario if all the Republican controlled states without calls were to call for an unrestricted convention.

So added a new section about that.

Expand full comment

No way it happens :)

Expand full comment

Thanks Robert.

Expand full comment

Thanks Robert, yeah I'm not overtly worried about it because like you said they would still need 38 states to ratify any amendment, but of course it was in the back of my anxiety riddled mind so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Thank you so much.

Expand full comment