This is Part 3 of a 3-part Fact Sheet to help you participate in the national League's Consensus Study on the Process of Amending the Constitution.
League Study of Key Structures of Democracy
The LWV of Falls Church is joining Leagues from across the nation to take part in the national League study of Key Structures of Democracy.
Adopted at the 2014 LWVUS Convention, this involves the study and arriving at a national consensus about the most consequential questions facing our democracy today: 1) The process of amending the U.S. Constitution; 2) Money in Politics Review -- Updating the League's position on campaign finance for the purpose of addressing the lack of member understanding and agreement as to whether financing a political campaign is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Our participation in these studies and in arriving at a consensus is our opportunity to impact the resulting national League's positions, and indeed shape the national conversation on these questions vital to our democracy.
Dates to remember:
Sunday, Nov. 8
LWVFC Informational meeting on Constitutional Amendment Study
FC Community Center
3:00-4:30p.m.
Sunday, Nov. 15
LWVFC Consensus meeting on Constitutional Amendment Study
FC Community Center
3:00-4:30p.m.
CONSENSUS: WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT IS NOT AND HOW IT IS DETERMINED. LWV-VA
Read Here.
Here's what Article V of the U.S. Constitution says about amending the Constitution:
"
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . . ."
So Article V provides two ways of proposing amendments to the nation's fundamental charter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both chambers, may propose constitutional amendments to the states for ratification. OR, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34 at present) may ask Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution; this is commonly called an Article V Convention. Amendments proposed by either method must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, 38 at present.
League Background
Perhaps it goes without saying that the League of Women Voters believes it is right and permissible to amend the Constitution of the United States when circumstances demand. The League was born from the successful, decades-long effort to pass the 19th Amendment.
The question for us today is: what are the shared values and beliefs within the League - what consensus do we have - regarding the circumstances that might allow or compel the League to endorse a constitutional amendment or an Article V Convention?
If we do find that we have consensus on some of the principles that should guide us, mobilizing the organization to advocacy for or against a particular amendment would fall under the established protocol by which the League determines its advocacy agenda
Part III
Balancing Questions
Part III relates to how the League might put the guidelines from Part I and Part II into practice and asks two overall balancing questions between process and positions. Should the evaluation guidelines from Part I and the process criteria from Part II always be applied or may they be set aside in the overall context of any particular amendment proposal?
Consensus Questions
Here are the consensus questions posed in Part III, with some additional background and points of view:
4. Should the League consider supporting a constitutional amendment that will advance a League position even if:
a. There are significant problems with the actual amendment as proposed?
Should consider Should not consider No consensus
PRO: Our positions have been studied and agreed to. If other organizations are supporting an amendment in a policy area we also support, we might participate even though it is inconsistent with the evaluation guidelines we support under Part I.
CON: If the League has a consensus on the evaluation guidelines outlined in Part I, then the League should not campaign on an amendment when it is inconsistent with those standards, even though the League supports the policy outcome.
Consensus Question 4.a
Background
This question is asking whether we might want to allow for circumstances where our commitment to a policy outcome could overcome the evaluation guidelines developed in Part I. Would we ever relax the considerations for determining an appropriate and well-crafted amendment to try to achieve a desired policy outcome?
Points of View
Some believe the League could support a constitutional amendment as a way of advancing the general topic of a proposed amendment even if there may be significant problems with the amendment itself. They argue that a constitutional amendment can provoke debate and draw public attention to the topic, and that the debate might help advance the issue in Congress, the states, or the courts. A proposed amendment can serve as a grassroots organizing device, even if the amendment itself might be flawed or have little chance of passage. If you agree, answer "Should consider."
Others argue that the League should support a proposed constitutional amendment based on the amendment itself, and that the League should not campaign for an amendment when it may be ineffective, counterproductive, conflict with other constitutional values, or have little chance of passage. They suggest that the League's reputation for knowledgeable action means that supporting an amendment that has significant problems is inconsistent with League values. If you agree, answer "Should not consider."
***
Consensus Question 4.b
b. It is being put forward by a procedural process the League would otherwise oppose?
Should consider Should not consider No consensus
PRO: Our positions have been studied and agreed to. If other organizations are supporting an amendment in a policy area we also support, we might participate even though it is inconsistent with the process criteria we support under Part II.
CON: If the League has a consensus on the process criteria outlined in Part II, then the League should not campaign for an amendment when the process being proposed is inconsistent with those standards, even though the League supports the policy outcome.
Background
This question is asking whether we might want to allow for circumstances where our commitment to a policy outcome could overcome our commitment to good process, as developed in Part II. Would we ever relax our standards about whether and how an Article V Convention should be called and conducted in order to try to achieve a desired policy outcome?
Points of View
Some argue that dire circumstances and a paralyzed Congress might mean the League should use whatever tools are at our disposal. They believe circumstances could be so damaging and intransigent that the League could support calling an Article V Convention even if there are objections to using the Article V Convention in general or if there are objections to the way that the Convention is being called and controlled. They argue that the threat of a Convention may help advance the issue in Congress, the states, or the courts, and that even if a Convention is called using a flawed process, the high ratification threshold provides a safeguard against the worst outcomes. If you agree, answer "Should consider."
Others argue that the League should not take the stance that the ends justify the means; we should not abandon our commitment to democratic process just because we find the outcome attractive in a particular case. If you agree, answer "Should not consider."
***
Dates to remember:
Sunday, Nov. 8
LWVFC Informational meeting on Constitutional Amendment Study
FC Community Center
3:00-4:30p.m.
Sunday, Nov. 15
LWVFC Consensus meeting on Constitutional Amendment Study
FC Community Center
3:00-4:30p.m.
