Listen 
Article V of the United States Constitution reflects the wise foresight of the Founding Fathers in creating a mechanism for peaceful change in our nation's fundamental laws. Unlike past revolutions, marked by chaos and conflict, the amendment process in the U.S. Constitution offers a systematic and deliberate approach to making necessary changes to the law. Its structured framework encourages civic engagement by enabling citizens to voice concerns, propose adjustments, and actively contribute to the ongoing refinement of the nation's governing principles.
The reason for this intentional approach is to make sure that any changes to our Constitution happen with the agreement of a supermajority, not just a mere majority. In this way it acts like a safety net that prevents the law from being changed through quick or impulsive decisions that might not be in the best interest of the majority. This process shows how much the American Framers believed in working together, talking things out, and making decisions that the vast majority can agree on.
Two Methods for Proposing Amendments
Article V provides two ways for the Constitution to be amended. The first is through a Congressional Proposal. The second method has never occurred but is known as an Article V Convention. Let’s briefly look at each of these methods.
-
Congressional Proposal: The first method for proposing an amendment to the Constitution takes place in the legislative branch, or Congress. An amendment can be proposed if it receives a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This requirement for a two-thirds majority in both chambers acts as a safeguard to ensure that proposed amendments have substantial backing from representatives elected by the people. To date, all 27 amendments to the U. S. Constitution have occurred through this method.
-
Article V Convention: A second method for proposing an amendment to the Constitution could occur if two-thirds of the state legislatures requested Congress to convene an amending convention which would consist of delegates from each state. Currently this would require support from 34 out of 50 states for Congress to be required to call an Article V Convention. This process would essentially bypass a Congressional Proposal and allow the state legislatures or state conventions to both propose and ratify an amendment. The convention's sole purpose would be to propose an amendment to the Constitution based on specific guidelines that would be agreed to beforehand. While this second method has never been used, it reflects the Founders' wisdom in allowing the States to act independently of Congress in proposing amendments. Since they created the national government, they have a right to alter it.
An Article V Convention is a powerful check against federal overreach. It provides an alternative route for proposing amendments when Congress may be unwilling or unable to address issues that are of great concern to the states and the people.
Ratification Process
Proposing an amendment is the initial step which involves drafting the language and presenting it for consideration. Ratification, on the other hand, is the subsequent step where the proposed amendment is officially accepted and incorporated into the Constitution. This step occurs the same way regardless of the method used to propose the amendment.
According to Article V, the ratification process is permitted through two methods. An amendment can be ratified by the state legislatures, or by state conventions. Let’s look at each method.
-
State Legislatures: Amendments can be ratified by the elected legislatures of the individual states.
-
State Conventions: Alternatively, states may call special conventions specifically for the purpose of considering and ratifying proposed amendments.
The method for ratification is determined by the United States Congress. In both cases, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions.
Three-Fourths Majority Requirement
Requiring the approval of three-fourths of the states is a high threshold deliberately set to ensure that amendments have widespread support. This supermajority requirement acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of a mere majority and is designed to ensure that amendments have substantial backing from a diverse array of states. It also prevents amendments from being ratified based on regional or partisan interests, promoting a national perspective on changes to the Constitution.
Possible Reasons Why an Article V Convention Has Never Happened
Many people have wondered why this second method of amending the Constitution has never been used. While there are varying opinions, here are a few things to consider.
-
Familiarity and Tradition: The first method, involving Congress, has become the traditional method used from the Bill of Rights (amendments 1 – 10) to the twenty-seventh amendment, ratified May 7, 1992. Since we are creatures of habit, change does not come easily, and It’s easy to say, “that’s just the way we do things.”
-
Efficiency: Proposing amendments through Congress is often seen as a more efficient and coordinated process. It allows for a centralized and structured approach to constitutional changes. Organizing a Convention of the States could be viewed as an additional and unfamiliar step to propose an amendment.
-
Congressional Authority: Article V grants a key power to Congress for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Since Congress represents the people in the House of Representatives, and originally represented the States in the Senate, it was designed to be a natural and effective body for proposing amendments.
-
Congressional Action to Avoid a Convention: In a few cases Congress was faced with pressure from the states to pass an amendment. Rather than allowing the States to obtain a two-thirds majority and propose an amendment, Congress chose to capitulate rather than allow a convention of the states to convene. Here are two examples:
-
Seventeenth Amendment (1913): By the early 20th century, a significant number of states had expressed support for changing the election process for Senators. Faced with the possibility of a convention of states, Congress passed the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, providing for the direct election of Senators by the people.
-
Twenty-First Amendment (1933): A movement to repeal Prohibition gained traction with a considerable number of states that expressed support for ending the ban on intoxicating liquors. Responding to the widespread sentiment, Congress proposed the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, repealing the Eighteenth Amendment and ending Prohibition.
Fear of a "Runaway Convention"
One concern associated with a convention of states is the fear of a "runaway convention." This term implies a scenario in which a convention, once convened, goes beyond its intended scope and drafts a radical new constitution rather than addressing the specific issue(s) for which it was called. While there are risks in entering uncharted waters, here are a few things to consider with a convention under Article V.
- While the states have the authority to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment, each state must understand the specific nature and scope of the convention before acknowledging their intent to attend – if a two-thirds majority is reached. Specifying the subject matter places an important check on the convention's powers by only authorizing the delegates to convene for a stated purpose. The obvious counter to this is: “it happened before, so why couldn’t it happen again”. This leads to the second point.
- Sometimes a convention of states is referred to as a Constitutional Convention. While it is similar in structure to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a Convention of the States can only be formed to propose amendments to the Constitution and isn’t a constitutional convention in its true form. A constitutional convention typically implies a gathering to draft an entirely new constitution. This is not what Article V allows.
- If the convention were to propose changes outside of the designated issue(s), the recommended amendments would still need to gain approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions. This requirement ensures that any proposed alterations to the Constitution would have to reflect a broad and substantial national consensus, not just a mere majority as with a presidential election.
- In addition, the Supreme Court could act as an additional check on this process – a check the Articles of Confederation did not possess. If the convention were to exceed its mandate or propose changes unrelated to the specified amendment, the Supreme Court could intervene, declaring such actions as contrary to the constitutional framework.
Consider this additional thought. The framers were essentially in the midst of an “Article V” convention gone awry, and yet they still included this amendment method in the Constitution.
Conclusion
Article V of the United States Constitution stands as a testament that the Founding Fathers were committed to creating a government that the people could peacefully and deliberately maintain and repair. Through this amendment process they established a safeguard against impulsive alterations, by requiring the amendment process to be a thoughtful dialogue, resulting in a super-majority consensus.
They wisely included a way for the states to independently amend the Constitution in the event that Congress failed to meet the needs of the states or the people. Perhaps they included this second method for a time such as this, inspired by the second paragraph in the
Declaration of Independence.
17 comments
Tony Celiberti
A call for a Convention of States is a threat to the Washington establishment of politicians, bureaucrats and big money donors! Make no mistake, an Article V Convention of States will happen soon.
Cindy Nation
Before the Constitution there was no Article V so no, the framers were not in the midst of an Article V convention that went awry-it was instead the normal way they governed and co-operated called an interstate convention. All amendments must be germane (legal term) so if a proposal were to be outside the designated issues for the convention a “point of order” would be called & it would not be permitted. Congress does not “allow” a convention, it is not their choice. Once the states meet the constitutional threshold it is a duty to set a time, date & place for the convention. The states’ applications are not a request, they are a notification of intent. The people who call it a Constitutional Convention are those that have done no research, usually the far left or the chicken little, uninformed types on the far right. There is a huge difference. Many believe it must be spelled out in the Constitution to be valid, but the Constitution is not a rule book, it is instead a delegation of authorities, and this authority came from the Common Law and Agency Law that has processes that every legislature was built on that are still the law. The states created the federal government and did not hand over all authority on 18 areas and a convention is not one of them for the federal government. The CRS is a research office not a policy setting entity & are wrong according to several rulings of the court. Rules & law are different, but the courts have said you can limit the subject matter of a convention more than once & that the federal government has no role in the proceedings of a convention. A convention has only one authority & that is to propose amendments just like Congress can. It is impossible to “runaway” because it cannot enact anything. To quote an actual scholar on this, Rob Natelson, “Black’s Law Dictionary is, as the name implies, a book of legal definitions. The definitions are largely culled from decided cases.” There are three such sources that are useful mostly as a place to begin. You can get a quick overview of an area preparatory to your legal research. The cases they cite offer a place to begin your investigation into the case law. But these are about case law not the Constitution & its meanings, so it does not apply to the use of Article V. For those who think all the states limited their delegations to just the Articles of Confederation, you simply need to read their resolutions for proof that is incorrect. Only NY and MA did that and only one other state even mention the “Articles.” Congress did not call that convention and they did not structure it as they were only authorized as a recommendatory body by the Articles and their resolution was issued after 6 states had already authorized the convention and their own words were “Resolved that in the opinion of Congress” They did not say by order or directive of Congress so that argument is false. See
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/the-constitutional-convention/convention-delegates/ for the full text of all resolutions which can also be found at the Library of Congress, Yale University’s Avalon Project and the National Archives.
Dennis W Denton
Response to Daniel Hunt
Instructions to the Delegates of the Philadelphia Convention
I have used this with regards to the premise that the “convention exceeded their authority”. The actual instruction wording of the commissions of the 12 states that attended. NY and MA added wording to “solely amend the Art of Conf as well as “render the Federal Constitution adequate”
Congress only voted to endorse the Convention and did not CALL it or give instructions
From the VA Commission:
to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other States, to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia, as above recommended, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union
From the NJ Commission:
for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof.
From the PA Commission:
with powers to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other states to assemble in the said convention at the city aforesaid, and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union
From the NC Commission:
are hereby authorized as Deputies from this state, to meet at Philadelphia on the first day of May next, then and there to meet and confer with such Deputies as may be appointed by the other states for similar purposes, and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our federal union
From the GA Commission:
and they are hereby appointed commissioners, who, or any two or more of them, are hereby authorized as deputies from this state to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other states, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and farther provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union,
From the DE Commission:
are hereby constituted and appointed Deputies from this State, with Powers to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other States to assemble in the said Convention at the City aforesaid, and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union;
From the NH Commission:
are hereby authorized, and empowered, as Deputies from this State to meet at Philadelphia said Convention, or any other place to which the said Convention may be adjourned; for the purposes aforesaid, there to confer with such deputies, as are, or may be appointed by the other States for similar purposes; and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of our federal union; and to procure, and secure, the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect
From the MD Commission:
be appointed and authorized, on behalf of this state, to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by any other of the United States to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, for the purpose of revising the federal system, and to join with them in considering such alterations, and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union
From the CT Commission:
are hereby authorized and empowered to represent this State therein, & to confer with such Delegates appointed by the several States, for the Purposes mentioned in the sd Act of Congress, that may be present and duly empowered to act in said Convention, and to discuss upon such Alterations and Provisions, agreeable to the general Principles of Republican Government, as they shall think proper, to render the federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Government, and the Preservation of the Union;
From the SC Commission:
are hereby authorized as deputies from this state. to meet such deputies or commissioners as may be appointed and authorized by other of the united states, to assemble in convention at the city of Philadelphia in the month of May next after passing this act. or as soon thereafter as may be, and to join with such deputies or commissioners, they being duly authorized and empowered in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and provisions as may be thought necessary to render the federal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states
From the NY Commission:
for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress, and to the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the several states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union
From the MA Commission:
for the sole & express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress & the several Legislatures, such alterations & provisions therein, as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government; & the preservation of the Union”—
they are hereby instructed not to exceed to any alterations or additions that may be proposed to be made in the present Articles of Confederation, which may appear to them, not to consist with the true republican Spirit and Genius of the Said Confederation:
Catherine Zemanek
The opponents of Convention of States use a fear tactic called FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) They throw out all of the ‘what ifs’ without doing the research. Their ‘so-called experts’ are only people wanting attention, however, the real experts on Article V have researched history and have published credible documentation. America is the greatest country to EVER exist because Americans put fear aside and trust our Framers of our Constitution. They gave us Article V in that very same Constitution, but the doubters of Article V love to say “Enforce the Constitution we have”. To deny this is simply ridiculous. And the groups that call themselves conservatives opposing COS love to personally attack anyone who disagrees with them. They are nihilists who only want to tear things down. They prey on people using FUD tactics, always have and always will. They have never done anything to make this country a better place. Find out what they tried to do to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and William Buckley. Let’s give the state legislatures their power back through Federalism. At this point, we all need to come together or the great experiment of America will be over very soon. God bless!
Melissa Martin
https://conventionofstates.com/files/the-liberal-establishment-s-disinformation-campaign-against-article-v-and-how-it-misled-conservatives/download