Explaining the Prevalence of State Constitutional Conventions in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

IF 0.4 4区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Policy History Pub Date : 2022-06-06 DOI:10.1017/S0898030622000094
J. Dinan
{"title":"Explaining the Prevalence of State Constitutional Conventions in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries","authors":"J. Dinan","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although state constitutional conventions in the United States were once called frequently and brought about significant changes in governance, recent decades have seen little convention activity. I examine the contrast between the earlier regularity of conventions and their recent absence, but from a different perspective than is usually taken—not by explaining the recent absence but rather explaining the regularity from the 1770s through 1970s. I investigate why legislatures in prior eras agreed to call conventions and how legislators’ traditional opposition to conventions was overcome on a regular basis. After identifying the state constitutional conventions held in the US and setting aside conventions that were called to join, leave, or rejoin the Union or were instigated by institutions other than legislatures, I focus on 82 conventions called at the discretion of legislators and for reasons unrelated to joining, leaving, or rejoining the Union. I identify the issues and circumstances that were responsible for legislators’ willingness to overcome their traditional opposition to holding conventions, thereby contributing to a better understanding of both the challenges in calling conventions and the occasions when these challenges can be overcome.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"297 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000094","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Although state constitutional conventions in the United States were once called frequently and brought about significant changes in governance, recent decades have seen little convention activity. I examine the contrast between the earlier regularity of conventions and their recent absence, but from a different perspective than is usually taken—not by explaining the recent absence but rather explaining the regularity from the 1770s through 1970s. I investigate why legislatures in prior eras agreed to call conventions and how legislators’ traditional opposition to conventions was overcome on a regular basis. After identifying the state constitutional conventions held in the US and setting aside conventions that were called to join, leave, or rejoin the Union or were instigated by institutions other than legislatures, I focus on 82 conventions called at the discretion of legislators and for reasons unrelated to joining, leaving, or rejoining the Union. I identify the issues and circumstances that were responsible for legislators’ willingness to overcome their traditional opposition to holding conventions, thereby contributing to a better understanding of both the challenges in calling conventions and the occasions when these challenges can be overcome.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释19世纪和20世纪国家制宪会议的盛行
摘要尽管美国各州制宪会议一度频繁召开,并带来了治理的重大变化,但近几十年来,制宪会议活动很少。我研究了公约早期的规律性和最近的缺失之间的对比,但从一个与通常不同的角度来看——不是通过解释最近的缺失,而是通过解释从17世纪70年代到70年代的规律性。我调查了为什么以前的立法机构同意召开公约,以及立法者对公约的传统反对是如何定期克服的。在确定了美国举行的州宪法公约,并搁置了被要求加入、离开或重新加入联邦或由立法机构以外的机构发起的公约后,我重点关注了82项由立法者自行决定并因与加入、离开和重新加入联邦无关的原因而召集的公约。我确定了导致立法者愿意克服传统上反对召开公约的问题和情况,从而有助于更好地了解召开公约的挑战以及可以克服这些挑战的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
A New Deal for Wine The Most Iniquitous Lobby: The Committee for Constitutional Government and the Shaping of American Politics, 1937–1955 “Granting” Justice, Debating Delinquency: The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act and the UNC Training Center on Delinquency and Youth Crime, 1961–1967 Identity Politics within Kentucky’s Civil Service and the Growth of the Bureaucratic State Mobilizing for the Mind: Veteran Activism and the National Mental Health Act of 1946
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1