Maryland 2010

This Maryland case study examines how constituted powers can limit the sovereign by limiting its ability to initiate constitutional change. Constituted powers in other states may seek to sedate the sovereign in other ways but are likely to do so in ways that, as in Maryland, preserve plausible deniability. In contrast to the following two case studies, which examine the politics of the Periodic Constitutional Convention Referendum (PCCR) after the PCCR election cycle has begun, this case study examines PCCR politics before the PCCR election cycle has begun. That is, it focuses on remote rather than proximate political causation. In that sense, it is the most academic of the three case studies in this book. At the other extreme, the mainstream news media tend to focus on proximate causes, often those occurring in the last 24 hours before a story is written. This chapter provides theoretical and other context to evaluate the rationale used by Maryland's Legislature to not pass enabling legislation after convention call referendums passed with simple (”ordinary”) majorities in 1930, 1950, and 2010. Key concepts include majority denominator neglect from John Locke to the present, and the difference between verbal and implemented majority denominator language.