Evening star., 1933-02-28


word "of" In the seventh section makes
clear that the Constitution itself was
submitted to convention "of" the States,
while amendments to the Constitution
are submitted not to States in conven-
ton, but to conventions "in" the
States.
am asked specifically whether under
that submission, If convention in a
given State should fail to ratify, would
that preclude subsequent convention
IN that State from ratifying the pro-
posed amendment
The probabilities are that it would.
Cites Opposite View.
If it be assumed, however, as some
able lawyers contend, that when the
two houses of Congress submitted this
proposed amendment to conventions in
the States. the whole matter passed
from the Congress to the jurisdiction of
the States, it would seem that the fall
ure of one convention to ratify would
no more exhaust the power to ratify
than would the failure of one Legisla-
ture to ratify preclude a subsequent
Legislature from ratifying.
I am not aware that this power has
been definitely established. It seems,
however, to be generally conceded.
The underlying question is, however,
does the whole matter pass to the juris-
diction Of the States, or a lesser ques-
ton, does any power pass to the States
as result Of the submission to conven-
ton, or do the States have any original
or reserved power to deal as States
government with proposed amendments
to the Federal Constitution?
seriously question that they have
any such power.
The entire power to deal with
amendments to the Federal Constitu-
ton is derived from the Constitution
Itself, and more especially from Ar
ticle 5. The authority of the two
houses of Congress is derived from no
incidental or inherent power. 1t is
specifically conferred by the Constitu-
tton and must be exercised as the Con-
stitution prescribes.
Act Under Constitution.
The Legislatures or conventions act
Ing with reference to proposed amend
ments act under no commission or
power inherent, or derived either from
the States or from the people. Their
authority to act is from the Federal
Constitution. They are agents of the
Federal Constitution moving toward its
amendment
The Governors or supreme courts OF
the States or any other agency could
have been selected instead of Legisla-
lures or conventions.
Cites Decision of Court.
It was held in Hawke VS.. Smith, 253
q. S. 227: ''The trainers of the Consti-
tuition might have adopted a different
method Ratification might have been
left to vote of the people or to some
authority other than that selected"
If, however, no act of Congress is
passed dealing with these conventions,
and the States as governments, never
theless do act in initiating these con-
ventions and regulating their proceed
ure, assuming that the conventions in
their determining characteristics are
the same as conventions were at the
time Of the adoption Of the Constitu-
ton, am not prepared to say that the
action of convention SO created as a
matter of governmental comfy would
not meet the constitutional requirement.
In view, however of the uncertainty
and difference of opinion among law
yers, it does not seem sensible to ad-
journ Congress without removing all
uncertainty by legislation similar to
that which places in the States control
over the election Of presidential elec-
tors.