A Convention to Amend the Constitution, and More from CRS
Article V of the U.S. Constitution prescribes two ways by which the Constitution can be amended: Either Congress may propose amendments for ratification by the states, or else a majority of state legislatures may ask Congress to call a convention for considering amendments.
A new report by the Congressional Research Service examines the possibility of a convention to amend the Constitution. That option has never been used in practice but, CRS says, it could become newly appealing under present circumstances.
“Various contemporary developments could contribute to a renewal of congressional interest in the Article V Convention alternative,” the new CRS report said. “The emergence of Internet and social media-driven public policy and issue campaigns has combined with renewed interest in specific constitutional amendments, and the Article V Convention procedure in general, as a means of bypassing perceived policy deadlock at the federal level.”
However, “The Constitution provides only a brief description of the Article V Convention process, leaving many details that would need to be considered if a convention were to become a serious prospect.”
A copy of the new CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News. See The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress, July 9, 2012.
Other new and updated CRS reports that have not been approved by Congress for broad public access include the following.
Health Care: Constitutional Rights and Legislative Powers, July 9, 2012
U.S. Postal Service: Background and Analysis of H.R. 2309 and S.1789 in the 112th Congress, July 9, 2012
Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues, July 6, 2012
Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information, June 26, 2012
If carbon markets are going to play a meaningful role — whether as engines of transition finance, as instruments of accurate pricing across heterogeneous climate interventions, or both — they need the infrastructure and standards that any serious market requires.
Good information sources, like collections, must be available and maintained if companies are going to successfully implement the vision of AI for science expressed by their marketing and executives.
Let’s see what rules we can rewrite and beliefs we can reset: a few digital service sacred cows are long overdue to be put out to pasture.
Nestled in the cuts and investments of interest to the S&T community is a more complex story of how the administration is approaching the practice of science diplomacy.