|
Article V of the Constitution sets out two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution. The first is a vote by two-thirds of each house of Congress. The second method is a Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, or an “Article V convention.” An Article V convention must be called, “on the application to the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.” Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, they must be ratified by three-fourths of the states for them to become part of the Constitution. History While the Article V convention process has never been used to amend the constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) were proposed by Congress, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V convention. Rather than risk a constitutional convention taking control of the amendment process, Congress acted first to propose amendments instead. There have been two nearly-successful attempts to amend the constitution since the late 1960s. The first try was an attempt to propose an amendment that would overturn two controversial Supreme Court decisions dealing with voting districts and apportionment of votes in state elections. The attempt fell only one state short of reaching the 34 needed to force Congress to call a convention in 1969. After this peak, several states rescinded their applications, and interest in the proposed amendment subsided.
The next nearly-successful attempt to
call a convention was in the late 1970s and 1980s, in response to the
ballooning federal deficit. States began applying to Congress for a
constitutional convention to propose a balanced-budget amendment. By
1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states
short of the 34 needed to force a convention. Enthusiasm for the
amendment subsided because Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Act, which required that the budget be balanced by 1991 (but was
overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986). Many states have never
rescinded their applications for a convention, and their applications
remain active until the present time.
Unfounded Concerns About Article V Conventions: A Runaway Convention? Because no Article V Convention has ever been convened, there are many unanswered questions about how a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited. The consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received. Comments made at the time the Constitution was adopted indicate that it was understood when the Constitution was drafted that Congress would have no discretion. While Congress likely has no authority to limit the scope of an Article V Convention, the scholarly consensus is that the states do have that power. Congress's duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states have requested. If the states, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called must be what the states requested. The drafting history of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 provides proof that it was the framers' intent that Article V conventions could be limited by the states, because it clearly indicates their intent that states could limit their applications according to subject matter. If states have the power to limit a convention to a particular subject matter and Congress only has power to call a convention, but no further power to control or regulate it, then a potential concern becomes whether an Article V convention could become a "runaway convention" that attempts to exceed its scope. An Article V convention only has power to propose amendments. Proposed amendments are not part of the constitution until they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. If a convention did try to exceed its scope, none of the amendments it proposed would become part of the constitution until three-fourths of the states approved. The states, therefore, act as a check to control a convention, by not ratifying amendments that have been inappropriately adopted. If a convention did exceed its scope, and the states still chose to ratify its proposed amendments, the proposed amendments would have to enjoy widespread popularity, since ratification requires the assent of even more states (three-fourths) than are required to call a convention in the first place. A runaway convention couldn't make drastic, unwanted changes to the Constitution because such changes would never get the support of three-fourths of the states. Additionally, fears that an Article V convention may exceed its scope are likely unfounded, in light of the United States' experience with state constitutional conventions. Over 600 state constitutional conventions have been held to amend state constitutions, with little evidence that any of them have exceeded their scope. Questions About the Subject Matter of Applications A related question is whether Congress must tally all applications received, regardless of their subject matter, or whether Congress must tally according to the subject mater of the applications. If Congress must tally them according to subject matter, then it would only be able to call an Article V convention if it receives applications from 34 states requesting an Article V convention to address the same subject matter. If Congress is required to tally applications regardless of subject matter, then it should have called a convention a long time ago, because hundreds of applications on different subject matters have been submitted to Congress. The drafting history of Article V at the 1787 Constitutional Convention indicates that the understood meaning of Article V at the time it was drafted is that states may limit the subject matter of their applications, and that Congress has a duty to tally applications separately by subject matter. In order to give effect to the originally understood meaning of Article V, and to give effect to states' intent when making applications to Congress for a convention, the accepted view is that state applications to Congress should be tallied individually, by subject matter to determine whether the two-thirds threshold of state applications has been met.
This text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. This page uses material from the Wikipedia article “Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution.”
|
