 | Court action by a state to compel convention. |
|
There is an interesting twist to a court action to compel calling of a convention. If an action to compel Congress to act on the currently pending con-con applications was filed by a STATE, you have a much better case and you have a party (a state) with strong and undisputed standing. In addition, such an action (State v. United States) has original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. At least one candidate for governor in South Carolina has already stated publicly that he will take such an action if he wins. Perhaps others should question and get on the record, their own local candidates for Governor and state Attorney General, if they will do the same. |
 | Re: Court action by a state to compel convention. |
|
Under the most recent SCOTUS decision, this is probably considered a political question. Indeed, neither the District Court nor the Circuit Court of Appeals will even hear arguments, which actually makes it easier to get to the SCOTUS. While the complaint needs to introduce all the relevant points and agruments - this step is really pro-forma because the lower court can't depart from precident. A state original jurisdiction action before SCOTUS would be equivalent if you could find a state that cared enough to file - the problem is that most states work hand in glove with their congressional delegations (even if they don't appoint them) because they are anchored in the same partisan committee structures. Unless an existing major party makes an Article V convention part of its platform - or one of the current parties disappears and is replaced by a new party that does this - the chances of a state government action are weak. |