SCOPE
The customary manner of calling
constitutional conventions in the United
States is by resolution of the legislature
followed by a submission of the question
to the electorate.2 As stated in its title,
the present annotation deals with the
question whether a state legislature has
power to put limitations on the powers
of a state constitutional convention.3
It should be observed that constitu-
tional conventions may be called into
being by agencies other than a state
legislature, for instance, by a proclama-
tion of the President of the United
States4 or by an act of Congress.6 How-
1 Reprinted from Annot., 158 A.L.R. 512
by the written permission of Lawyers' Co-
operative Publishing Co.
2 1 1 am. jur. Constitutional Law § 26.
3 For judicial decisions relating to adoption
or repeal of amendments to Federal Constitu-
tion, cf. Annot., 83 A.L.R. 1374, supplemented
in 87 A.L.R. 1321 and 122 A.L.R. 717.
4 For cases involving the powers of a con-
stitutional convention assembled pursuant to
a proclamation of the President of the United
States, see Washington v. Washington, 69 Ala.
281 (1881), and Cox v. Robison, 105 Tex.
426, 150 S.W. 1149 (1912) (holding that an
ordinance adopted by the Texas constitutional
convention of 1866 was valid without a vote
|
ever, this occasion of assembling a con-
stitutional convention ordinarily occurs
only at a time when a territory or a state
of the people, since the proclamation of Presi-
dent Johnson calling the convention did not
require any part of its work to be submitted
to the people for their ratification ) .
See Bradford v. Shine, 13 Fla. 393, 7 Am.
Rep. 239 (1871 ), where with respect to a con-
stitutional convention the delegates of which
had been elected under a proclamation of a
provisional governor appointed and authorized
to call the convention under a quasi-military
proclamation of the President of the United
States, the court said that "whatever may
have been the rightful authority or the legal
force of this proceeding, it is certain that the
authority and power of the convention so
elected was limited to that delegated by the
power which created and called it into being."
5 For cases dealing with the powers of a
constitutional convention as limited by the
act of Congress under which it was held, see
Plowman v. Thornton, 52 Ala. 559 (1875)
(where the court "assented fully to the prop-
osition that the power of the convention was
special and limited, and that it had no legis-
lative power" ): Frantz v. Autry, 18 Okla.
561, 91 P. 193 (1907), followed in Green
County ex rel. Thacker v. Constitutional Dele-
gate Convention, 18 Okla. 707, 91 P. 239
(1907) ; McCollister v. Murray, 18 Okla. 710,
91 P. 239 (1907) ; Haines v. Murray, 18 Okla.
711, 91 P. 240 (1907), and Walck v. Murray,
18 Okla. 712, 91 P. 238 (1907); Quinlan v.
Houston & T. C. R. Co., 89 Tex. 356, 34 S.W.
738 (1896).
341
|
