Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for contributing edits that were made in good faith, but have been deemed not to contribute positively to the article. These edits have thus been reverted. Wikipedia's page on unacceptable additions may explain why. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
Some good links for newcomers are:
- Help contents – the main help page.
- Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article
- Tutorial
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out the
Teahouse, ask the
Help Desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Once again, welcome! Fettlemap ( talk) 06:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Fettlemap. I am a political scientist and the edit I made was a literal quote from Article V (as in word for word). The language that was there was incorrect and misleading. I reedited it. Assembly314 ( talk) 07:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
As NotReallySoroka, I had added the appellation of "Convention of States" to the lede of our article on a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. However, you have removed it. Please note that I did not add the CoS name for Constitutional correctness; rather, I did it for the interest of including a common name on the process. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 11:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Convention of States" is a special interest brand AND its constitutionally inaccurate. The "name" of the process is word for word from Article V (a Convention to propose amendments). Further, States ONLY apply for such a convention and when it is convened...it is a convention of delegates not of states. Assembly314 ( talk) 13:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- From a legal point of view, if Article V's state-based process is activated, it is indeed a Convention (meeting) of States (State delegations). Article V itself does not mention how a Convention would run, or whether it would be a delegate-based vote (à la Congress) or a en bloc state-by-state vote. Therefore, your argument that "it is a convention of delegates not of states" is no more (or less) accurate than mine.
- To the uninformed public who is likely unaware that "Convention of States" is a special interest brand (notwithstanding the possibility that they aren't one), they would not likely recognize the Convention process as a "convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution"; rather, they might remember it as a Convention of States. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 13:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
From a legal point of view? Delegates to an Article V Convention are FEDERAL delegates (not state delegates). Their numbers and apportionment are determined identically to Congress. Delegates are agents of the People of the United States. Their duty would be to propose amendments to the FEDERAL Constitution. They are NOT agents of the the States. States cannot restrict the free speech and debate of delegates. Your "Convention of States" believe otherwise including felony charges for offering an amendment proposal outside the scope of a state's application. As I've said previously a Convention of States is not a "thing" under Article V. Conventions of States are for multi-state purposes and are subject to the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Article V isn't. They are not the same thing....from a legal point of view. Assembly314 ( talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where does it say that the numbers of Convention delegates "are determined identically to Congress" or whether they are legally "agents of the People of the United States". NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 06:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC), edited 06:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's start here. Article V is an article of the Federal Constitution. Correct? It deals with amending the Federal Constitution. The power to call such a convention is delegated to the Federal legislature (Congress). To the point, the convention is a FEDERAL convention. This should be obvious but apparently not. Any convention called and convened under the authority of Congress is federal convention. This is pretty simple. You asked where this is all written down. Well, it certainly isn't spelled out anywhere. Like the comments above, you won't find any of that word for word in any text that I'm aware of. Yet it is correct nonetheless. I could just give you the simple answer and say it's historical precedent and send you off with a homework assignment. But! I'll do you one better. Look for the enabling acts for new states (like Ohio, Missouri, etc). Before they were states, they were federal territories. They applied to Congress for statehood (similar to states applying for an amendments convention). Congress then called for a Convention (a federal convention under Article IV). To be clear, Congress was granting this federal territory the right to join the union on equal footing with the other states. The only needed to author a state Constitution suitable for a Republican form of Government. Once Congress accepted this new state's Constitution, they were admitted to the union. Why am I telling you all of this? Because Congress called the conventions, they were federal. In each and every case, delegates were elected in the exact same manner as Congressional representatives. These delegates were serving a federal role. The same can be said about the military districts after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts spell out the requirement of electing federal delegates. There have actually been over 70 federal conventions in our history. In each and every one, the delegates were elected as I've pointed out. This of course stands in stark contrast to a convention. of states (not federal). Their commissioners are appointed by state legislatures and any agreement (compact) they agree to is subject to the approval of Congress (commerce and supremacy clauses). With all of this said, Convention of States is not an appropriate name for the amendment conventions of Article V. It's not just wrong, it's 180 degrees wrong and entirely misleading. The phrase "a convention to propose amendments" is a term of art. It only means one thing. If you're looking for a "name" beyond that you might want to roll with the U.S. General Convention. Of course just naming something all willy-nilly without any regard for constitutional accuracy is silly at best. This might eventually gain traction. "Convention of States" is the worse possible suggestion though. This is why it was removed. Assembly314 ( talk) 23:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for contributing edits that were made in good faith, but have been deemed not to contribute positively to the article. These edits have thus been reverted. Wikipedia's page on unacceptable additions may explain why. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
Some good links for newcomers are:
- Help contents – the main help page.
- Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article
- Tutorial
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out the
Teahouse, ask the
Help Desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Once again, welcome! Fettlemap ( talk) 06:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Fettlemap. I am a political scientist and the edit I made was a literal quote from Article V (as in word for word). The language that was there was incorrect and misleading. I reedited it. Assembly314 ( talk) 07:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
As NotReallySoroka, I had added the appellation of "Convention of States" to the lede of our article on a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. However, you have removed it. Please note that I did not add the CoS name for Constitutional correctness; rather, I did it for the interest of including a common name on the process. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 11:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Convention of States" is a special interest brand AND its constitutionally inaccurate. The "name" of the process is word for word from Article V (a Convention to propose amendments). Further, States ONLY apply for such a convention and when it is convened...it is a convention of delegates not of states. Assembly314 ( talk) 13:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- From a legal point of view, if Article V's state-based process is activated, it is indeed a Convention (meeting) of States (State delegations). Article V itself does not mention how a Convention would run, or whether it would be a delegate-based vote (à la Congress) or a en bloc state-by-state vote. Therefore, your argument that "it is a convention of delegates not of states" is no more (or less) accurate than mine.
- To the uninformed public who is likely unaware that "Convention of States" is a special interest brand (notwithstanding the possibility that they aren't one), they would not likely recognize the Convention process as a "convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution"; rather, they might remember it as a Convention of States. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 13:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
From a legal point of view? Delegates to an Article V Convention are FEDERAL delegates (not state delegates). Their numbers and apportionment are determined identically to Congress. Delegates are agents of the People of the United States. Their duty would be to propose amendments to the FEDERAL Constitution. They are NOT agents of the the States. States cannot restrict the free speech and debate of delegates. Your "Convention of States" believe otherwise including felony charges for offering an amendment proposal outside the scope of a state's application. As I've said previously a Convention of States is not a "thing" under Article V. Conventions of States are for multi-state purposes and are subject to the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Article V isn't. They are not the same thing....from a legal point of view. Assembly314 ( talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where does it say that the numbers of Convention delegates "are determined identically to Congress" or whether they are legally "agents of the People of the United States". NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 06:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC), edited 06:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's start here. Article V is an article of the Federal Constitution. Correct? It deals with amending the Federal Constitution. The power to call such a convention is delegated to the Federal legislature (Congress). To the point, the convention is a FEDERAL convention. This should be obvious but apparently not. Any convention called and convened under the authority of Congress is federal convention. This is pretty simple. You asked where this is all written down. Well, it certainly isn't spelled out anywhere. Like the comments above, you won't find any of that word for word in any text that I'm aware of. Yet it is correct nonetheless. I could just give you the simple answer and say it's historical precedent and send you off with a homework assignment. But! I'll do you one better. Look for the enabling acts for new states (like Ohio, Missouri, etc). Before they were states, they were federal territories. They applied to Congress for statehood (similar to states applying for an amendments convention). Congress then called for a Convention (a federal convention under Article IV). To be clear, Congress was granting this federal territory the right to join the union on equal footing with the other states. The only needed to author a state Constitution suitable for a Republican form of Government. Once Congress accepted this new state's Constitution, they were admitted to the union. Why am I telling you all of this? Because Congress called the conventions, they were federal. In each and every case, delegates were elected in the exact same manner as Congressional representatives. These delegates were serving a federal role. The same can be said about the military districts after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts spell out the requirement of electing federal delegates. There have actually been over 70 federal conventions in our history. In each and every one, the delegates were elected as I've pointed out. This of course stands in stark contrast to a convention. of states (not federal). Their commissioners are appointed by state legislatures and any agreement (compact) they agree to is subject to the approval of Congress (commerce and supremacy clauses). With all of this said, Convention of States is not an appropriate name for the amendment conventions of Article V. It's not just wrong, it's 180 degrees wrong and entirely misleading. The phrase "a convention to propose amendments" is a term of art. It only means one thing. If you're looking for a "name" beyond that you might want to roll with the U.S. General Convention. Of course just naming something all willy-nilly without any regard for constitutional accuracy is silly at best. This might eventually gain traction. "Convention of States" is the worse possible suggestion though. This is why it was removed. Assembly314 ( talk) 23:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)