000			03664cam a22004334a 4500
001			muse52966
003			MdBmJHUP
005			20161111135857.0
006			m o d
007			cr||||||||nn|n
008			150707s2016 gau o 00 0 eng d
010			_z 2015025660
020			_a9780820348995
020			_z9780820349008 (hardcover : alk. paper)
035			_a(OCoLC)945566977
040			_aMdBmJHUP _cMdBmJHUP
043			_an-us---
050	0	0	_aKF4555 _b.V565 2016
082	0	0	_a342.7303/2 _223
100	1		_aVile, John R. _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aConventional wisdom _h[electronic resource] : _bthe alternate Article V mechanism for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution / _cJohn R. Vile.
260			_aAthens, Georgia : _bThe University of Georgia Press, _c[2016] _e(Baltimore, Md. : _fProject MUSE, _g2015)
300			_a1 online resource (xv, 266 pages )
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 243-259) and index.
505	0		_aThe Constitutional Convention of 1787 and its origins -- The establishment of the amending provisions in Article V and the ratification provisions in Article VII -- The history of Constitutional Amendments in the United States -- The lae Eighteenth century and Nineteenth century provide a rival set of Convention precedents -- A survey of early commentary on Article V -- The modern debate over limiting conventions -- Using criteria and ideal types to think about the big picture -- The selection and likely characteristics of delegates -- Organizationaol and logistical issues related to Article V Conventions -- Different kinds of Conventions.
520			_a"Article V of the Constitution allows two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress to propose amendments to the document and a three-fourths majority of the states to ratify them. Scholars and frustrated advocates of constitutional change have often criticized this process for being too difficult. Despite this, state legislatures have yet to use the other primary method that Article V outlines for proposing amendments: it permits two-thirds of the state legislatures to petition Congress to call a convention to propose amendments that, like those proposed by Congress, must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. In this book, John R. Vile surveys more than two centuries of scholarship on Article V and concludes that the weight of the evidence (including a much-overlooked Federalist essay) indicates that states and Congress have the legal right to limit the scope of such conventions to a single subject and that political considerations would make a runaway convention unlikely. Charting a prudent course between those who fail to differentiate revolutionary change from constitutional change, those who fear ever using the Article V convention mechanism that the Framers clearly envisioned, and those who would vest total control of the convention in Congress, the states, or the convention itself, Vile's work will enhance modern debates on the subject." -- Back cover.
588			_aDescription based on print version record.
610	1	0	_aUnited States. _tConstitution. _nArticle 5.
650		0	_aConstitutional amendments _zUnited States.
655		7	_aElectronic books. _2local
710	2		_aProject Muse.
830		0	_aUPCC book collections on Project MUSE.
856	4	0	_zFull text available: _uhttps://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780820348995/
945			_aProject MUSE - UPCC 2016 Political Science and Policy Studies
945			_aProject MUSE - UPCC 2016 Complete
999			_c1254 _d1254