{"title":"第五条和宪法公约法","authors":"Roman J. Hoyos","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2022-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can an Article V convention be limited? While there is an emerging consensus that it can, in this paper I focus on John A. Jameson's legal treatise on constitutional conventions and the jurisprudence it spawned to help round out our understanding of both Article V in particular, and of constitutional revision more generally. Jameson's treatise was directed to the larger question of whether constitutional conventions in general could be limited. Since its initial publication in 1867, courts have relied upon Jameson's insights to build a law of constitutional conventions at the state level. Several components of this jurisprudence are particularly relevant to Article V, including the distinction between constitutional and revolutionary conventions, the distinction between amendment and revision, and the requirements of convention acts and ratification votes, in addition to the preclusion of a robust role for the electorate in the Article V convention process. This jurisprudence is readily available for courts to help guide them in determining the nature and limits of an Article V convention.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Article V and the Law of Constitutional Conventions\",\"authors\":\"Roman J. Hoyos\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/bjals-2022-0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Can an Article V convention be limited? While there is an emerging consensus that it can, in this paper I focus on John A. Jameson's legal treatise on constitutional conventions and the jurisprudence it spawned to help round out our understanding of both Article V in particular, and of constitutional revision more generally. Jameson's treatise was directed to the larger question of whether constitutional conventions in general could be limited. Since its initial publication in 1867, courts have relied upon Jameson's insights to build a law of constitutional conventions at the state level. Several components of this jurisprudence are particularly relevant to Article V, including the distinction between constitutional and revolutionary conventions, the distinction between amendment and revision, and the requirements of convention acts and ratification votes, in addition to the preclusion of a robust role for the electorate in the Article V convention process. This jurisprudence is readily available for courts to help guide them in determining the nature and limits of an Article V convention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of American Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of American Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2022-0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2022-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
第五条公约可以受到限制吗?虽然有一种新兴的共识认为它可以,但在本文中,我将重点放在约翰·詹姆逊(John A. Jameson)关于宪法惯例的法律论文及其催生的法理学上,以帮助我们更好地理解宪法第五条,以及更广泛地理解宪法修订。詹姆逊的论文是针对一个更大的问题,即宪法公约是否一般可以受到限制。自1867年首次出版以来,法院一直依靠詹姆逊的见解在州一级建立宪法公约法。这一判例的若干组成部分与第五条特别相关,包括宪法公约和革命公约之间的区别、修正案和修订之间的区别、公约行为和批准投票的要求,以及排除选民在第五条公约进程中发挥强有力作用的可能性。法院很容易获得这种判例,以帮助指导它们确定第5条公约的性质和限制。
Article V and the Law of Constitutional Conventions
Can an Article V convention be limited? While there is an emerging consensus that it can, in this paper I focus on John A. Jameson's legal treatise on constitutional conventions and the jurisprudence it spawned to help round out our understanding of both Article V in particular, and of constitutional revision more generally. Jameson's treatise was directed to the larger question of whether constitutional conventions in general could be limited. Since its initial publication in 1867, courts have relied upon Jameson's insights to build a law of constitutional conventions at the state level. Several components of this jurisprudence are particularly relevant to Article V, including the distinction between constitutional and revolutionary conventions, the distinction between amendment and revision, and the requirements of convention acts and ratification votes, in addition to the preclusion of a robust role for the electorate in the Article V convention process. This jurisprudence is readily available for courts to help guide them in determining the nature and limits of an Article V convention.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of American Legal Studies is a scholarly journal which publishes articles of interest to the Anglo-American legal community. Submissions are invited from academics and practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic on all aspects of constitutional law having relevance to the United States, including human rights, legal and political theory, socio-legal studies and legal history. International, comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives are particularly welcome. All submissions will be peer-refereed through anonymous referee processes.