Article V: Convention of States

[Williamsmith]

Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev)

Conservatives have been actively promoting the use of this mechanism to bypass the gridlock and dysfunction in Congress. They have been deterred by opponents on both sides.....progressives who fear recent Supreme Court rulings may be overturned and others who fear progressives might remove rights like the 2nd amendment from the Constitution.

Is the political environment - given our current status in the White House and Congress...fertile ground for the "public nuclear option?"

Could someone like Bernie Sanders actually initiate a progressive call for use of Article V to create the right of the citizen to public funded healthcare? A universally publicly financed healthcare system......might that ironically be the result of conservatives like Mark Levin....calling for a convention of states?

[LDAHL]

I think a convention would open up a Pandora's box of various causes. There are people on the Right who would like to see a balanced budget or right to work amendment. There are people on the Left who would like to revise parts of the Bill of Rights pertaining to campaign finance or firearm ownership. I personally think this would be a particularly bad time to tinker with our national operating system. The general public and the people who represent them seem too confused and divided for the sober thinking that would be required.

[iris lilies]

I think that I, as a member of the public, shouldnt be agitating for a vote since I barely understsnd your post.

Are you saying we The People should enact legislation on healthcare since the Congress will not?

Naw, I find Congressional Deadlock to be not especially concerning. Let 'em continue to butt heads in the halls of D.C., they are checking and balancing themselves.

[LDAHL]

Naw, I find Congressional Deadlock to be not especially concerning. Let 'em continue to butt heads in the halls of D.C., they are checking and balancing themselves.

Totally agree. I think the system functions best when it frustrates the ambitions of wannabe messiahs like Trump and Obama.

[jp1]

I agree with LDAHL. The pandora's box that would be opened would potentially include really bad things like permanently enshrining in the constitution the ridiculous notion of corporate personhood. As powerful as corporations and their lobbyists have gotten over the past several decades I can easily see them controlling the process and leaving all us little people with nothing good to show for it.

[Williamsmith]

Totally agree. I think the system functions best when it frustrates the ambitions of wannabe messiahs like Trump and Obama.

I haven't formed a dogmatic opinion yet but your assertion requires one to accept that a system functioning as it is.....not making any progress in any direction......is a system which while it will not improve upon conditions, won't decay them. I feel that inaction at the federal level through gridlock or whatever name you want to call it, necessarily results in decay.

Current government is totally unworkable. Removing Congress, the Executive Branch, The Courts and Governors from the process is a method the founders provided to guard against a federal government-Congress- that refuses to do what is best for the states.

If the states can make progress on anything, whether it be a balanced budget amendment or a right to healthcare amendment....or many other issues currently being tossed around without compromise.....then if we refuse to try the alternative method provided by the Constitution....aren't we failing to use a tool that might improve our nation out of an unfounded anxiety that something might go wrong?

[early morning]

if we refuse to try the alternative method provided by the Constitution....aren't we failing to use a tool that might improve our nation out of an unfounded anxiety that something might go wrong? I must disagree with your use of the term "unfounded". Right now, in an area I consider pretty moderate, I - personally - am hearing from people on the streets who want to remove legal protections for gays, or cops, or immigrants, or those they THINK are immigrants, or any other group they oppose. Giving those views more weight and appearance of being appropriate only emboldens those who hold them, and encourages more agitation among those opposed. I don't think the nation is that much less divided than the congress, and I don't believe that citizens acting without an over-arching government will uniformly care about protecting the rights of those who are perceived as "others".. I'm not saying the constitutional convention option should be removed from the table, but you do your argument no favor by implying that those who appose calling a constitutional convention have no foundation for their anxiety about the fury such a move - at this point in time- might encourage and unleash. JMHO.

[ToomuchStuff]

So your saying the states legislatures, should call for a constitution convention?
I would think they would fear that, due to fallout from the federal level as well as not wanting the public to make the call for what I think a majority of American's would agree on. (amendment to eliminate Congressional exemptions, because the states politician's would face that same rule)

[LDAHL]

I haven't formed a dogmatic opinion yet but your assertion requires one to accept that a system functioning as it is.....not making any progress in any direction......is a system which while it will not improve upon conditions, won't decay them. I feel that inaction at the federal level through gridlock or whatever name you want to call it, necessarily results in decay.

Current government is totally unworkable. Removing Congress, the Executive Branch, The Courts and Governors from the process is a method the founders provided to guard against a federal government-Congress- that refuses to do what is best for the states.

If the states can make progress on anything, whether it be a balanced budget amendment or a right to healthcare amendment....or many other issues currently being tossed around without compromise.....then if we refuse to try the alternative method provided by the Constitution....aren't we failing to use a tool that might improve our nation out of an unfounded anxiety that something might go wrong?

I suppose the answer would depend on your definition of "progress". Too often, that simply means eliminating checks on central government power to accomplish somebody's project. Claiming "government is totally unworkable" because we can't arrive at a broad consensus in a given area is aromatic of an argument for autocracy. I don't think that there is a clear consensus in the country right now on which direction is "forward", and the current deadlock reflects that. You can't really argue that the federal government "refuses to do what is best for the states" when there is so much divergent opinion among and within the states.

I don't see a constitutional convention producing some kind of superior wisdom of crowds. I see it more likely as a playground for zealots.

[Williamsmith]

"I don't see a constitutional convention producing some kind of superior wisdom of crowds. I see it more likely as a playground for zealots."

I feel justified in pointing out that the last constitutional convention was convened in order to address a situation whereby the federal beuracracy had become untenable and requiring all 13 states to come to a consensus prior to creating governing legislation proved impossible. Therefore, improvements were made or some would argue.....a completely revamped government arose i.e. Our current Constitution .....which has served us quite well.

But, there are now issues that can be taken up one at a time with delegates under the control of each states legislature ensuring the representation .......the procedure is that Congress "shall" call for a convention upon receipt of the requisite number of state applications.

Whta I am trying to say is, if there were a consensus as to what "forward" movement looks like.....we would need no convention. Unfortunately, every time you turn on the television or read newspapers....you see what backward movement is. I need only cite our last election as proof of the need for debate, problem solving and action.

[Williamsmith]

LDAHL...you are an account by trade? How long do you think a mounting national debt can continue without us running out of time? Legislative reform and change through Congressional action is incomprehensible. The other option....Article V is worth a shot, no? Better than open rebellion and revolution.

[Teacher Terry]

I think it is a bad idea.

[bae]

It seems it would be simpler for the States to promote some well-focused amendments, rather than to engage in a full-blown constitutional convention.

This is the sort of thing which leads me to Rob's way of thinking - I keep substantial assets and contacts overseas, and maintain fluency in a variety of useful languages :-)

[Williamsmith]

Good idea or bad idea....everyone ought to realize how close this thing is to being reality. Bae, do you have room for one retired criminal investigator and his family on your overseas second homeland retreat?

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18940/alec-balanced-budget-corporate-constitutional-convention

[LDAHL]

How long do you think a mounting national debt can continue without us running out of time? Legislative reform and change through Congressional action is incomprehensible. The other option....Article V is worth a shot, no? Better than open rebellion and revolution.

Looking at history, there are a number of ways to handle a national debt.

Live within your means and run some level of surplus. Not very popular since the Coolidge administration. The Clinton surpluses were a historical/political fluke rather than hardnosed policy.

Devalue or inflate your currency to repay your creditors with cents on the dollar. Often the path of least resistance.

Repudiate your debt Argentine-style. Often plays well domestically when you blame foreigners for your problems.

Grow your economy and increase your tax base relative to the size of the debt. Very hard for governments to accomplish.

Loot someone else's economy. Less fashionable than it once was.

Borrow and spend all you can get away with, and let the next generation or two suffer the consequences. What have they ever done for us?

My take is that if we don't have the will to elect and support representatives to deal with the debt responsibly, what makes you think we would have the will to send representatives to a convention that will?

[Williamsmith]

Looking at history, there are a number of ways to handle a national debt.

Live within your means and run some level of surplus. Not very popular since the Coolidge administration. The Clinton surpluses were a historical/political fluke rather than hardnosed policy.

Devalue or inflate your currency to repay your creditors with cents on the dollar. Often the path of least resistance.

Repudiate your debt Argentine-style. Often plays well domestically when you blame foreigners for your problems.

Grow your economy and increase your tax base relative to the size of the debt. Very hard for governments to accomplish.

Loot someone else's economy. Less fashionable than it once was.

Borrow and spend all you can get away with, and let the next generation or two suffer the consequences. What have they ever done for us?

My take is that if we don't have the will to elect and support representatives to deal with the debt responsibly, what makes you think we would have the will to send representatives to a convention that will?

The simple answer is .....that is the reason George Mason proposed the convention of states in the first place. Because it opens a window of opportunity that otherwise doesn't exist in a Congress that is protecting their butts. 34 states for a convention...38 states and Congress has no say so. I can get in the ear of my state representative, I can call him on the phone, I can go knock on his door. My Congressman is insulated.

[jp1]

I feel justified in pointing out that the last constitutional convention was convened in order to address a situation whereby the federal beuracracy had become untenable and requiring all 13 states to come to a consensus prior to creating governing legislation proved impossible. Therefore, improvements were made or some would argue.....a completely revamped government arose i.e. Our current Constitution .....which has served us quite well.



The difference, though, is that the Articles of Confederation were never particularly effective and ended up being scrapped only 12 years after their creation and less than a decade after their ratification. The constitution, on the other hand, has proven itself to be at least satisfactory now for well over 200 years. Could improvements be made? Undoubtedly. Would improvements actually be made if a convention were held? I'm dubious on that question. And the potential to make things oh so much worse is quite high, at least in my opinion. I guess I'm just not a sunny optimist like you in believing that it would actually be a consensus of citizen input driving the process or even more than remotely driving it.

[ToomuchStuff]

Looking at history, there are a number of ways to handle a national debt.

Live within your means and run some level of surplus. Not very popular since the Coolidge administration. The Clinton surpluses were a historical/political fluke rather than hardnosed policy.

Devalue or inflate your currency to repay your creditors with cents on the dollar. Often the path of least resistance.

Repudiate your debt Argentine-style. Often plays well domestically when you blame foreigners for your problems.

Grow your economy and increase your tax base relative to the size of the debt. Very hard for governments to accomplish.

Loot someone else's economy. Less fashionable than it once was.

Borrow and spend all you can get away with, and let the next generation or two suffer the consequences. What have they ever done for us?

My take is that if we don't have the will to elect and support representatives to deal with the debt responsibly, what makes you think we would have the will to send representatives to a convention that will?

You forgot a world war. My late centurion neighbor talked about how the depression had ended, but it wasn't until the War and the shortages, where people had to save money until after, that things improved. The depression taught savings, reusing, resourcefulness, and the war helped refine those lessons.

[Williamsmith]

You forgot a world war. My late centurion neighbor talked about how the depression had ended, but it wasn't until the War and the shortages, where people had to save money until after, that things improved. The depression taught savings, reusing, resourcefulness, and the war helped refine those lessons.

My view is that War plunged us into debt...as far back as the Revolutionary War.......and as recently the Gulf Wars which arguably were prosecuted to maintain superpower status through energy independence. Our own resources and technology right here at home make it possible to dominate the world through energy independence....by that's another topic.

Kind of ironic that a warning against use of Article V is based on its risk of something bad coming out of it when the only time in history it was ever used.....we got the Constitution that has preserved our nation for so long.

[LDAHL]

Kind of ironic that a warning against use of Article V is based on its risk of something bad coming out of it when the only time in history it was ever used.....we got the Constitution that has preserved our nation for so long.

Yes, but then we had Madison and Monroe available for the project. We had the people who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Today we have people who communicate in hashtags and tweets.

[Williamsmith]

Yes, but then we had Madison and Monroe available for the project. We had the people who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Today we have people who communicate in hashtags and tweets.

Yes, I will allow, you make a good point there. But I will add that both Madison and Monroe for example did not believe the Constitution as it was created to be a faultless document. And so, since we as a Nation are facing such challenges and relying on the same ignoble Congress and a White House of buffoonery.......I would cast my lot with the various states to deliver Madison and Monroe like persons to address one topic per convention. Surely contining the ride on the wild weasel of federal government is not our only choice. As Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ears....."

[LDAHL]

Yes, I will allow, you make a good point there. But I will add that both Madison and Monroe for example did not believe the Constitution as it was created to be a faultless document. And so, since we as a Nation are facing such challenges and relying on the same ignoble Congress and a White House of buffoonery.......I would cast my lot with the various states to deliver Madison and Monroe like persons to address one topic per convention. Surely contining the ride on the wild weasel of federal government is not our only choice. As Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ears....."

I don't think anyone would regard the Constitution as a faultless document. Even the framers wouldn't sign off without attaching a Bill of Rights.

Is the ignobility and buffoonery the result of a Constitutional design flaw, or of the decisions we make as voters? I don't see how rewriting the rules will do much good there.

Wouldn't the states draw from the same pool in selecting convention delegates that our elected officials come from? Do we really want to trust our constitutional future to Kamala Harris or Mitch McConnel or Bill De Blasio or Chris Christie? The current design may not be our only choice, but I think it's pretty solid. Certainly not worth discarding in its entirety in the hope that our contemporary political class could do better.

[Williamsmith]

I don't think anyone would regard the Constitution as a faultless document. Even the framers wouldn't sign off without attaching a Bill of Rights.

Is the ignobility and buffoonery the result of a Constitutional design flaw, or of the decisions we make as voters? I don't see how rewriting the rules will do much good there.

Wouldn't the states draw from the same pool in selecting convention delegates that our elected officials come from? Do we really want to trust our constitutional future to Kamala Harris or Mitch McConnel or Bill De Blasio or Chris Christie? The current design may not be our only choice, but I think it's pretty solid. Certainly not worth discarding in its entirety in the hope that our contemporary political class could do better.

I suppose I am developing the view that it is not discarding one tested and proven system for a less secure one. I simply see it as another tool...perhaps a phillipshead screwdriver instead of a common flathead. Its use would be to me a very restricted one but an effective way to perhaps install term limits, maybe issue an ultimatum to live within our means and create balanced budgets that our grandchildren will not be asked to sacrifice to pay for our debt or if socialist leaning states perhaps could convince other states to join them.....we might see an amendment that would create a mandate to provide healthcare as a single payer system.

Not that I recommend the last example. Why should I, I like Congress am very happy and satisfied with my healthcare....it costs me next to nothing. So why would those in charge of creating healthcare policy, who do not have to buy healthcare themselves, ever be motivated to strip themselves of it? Isn't this the type of situation the founders envisioned and rightfully provided a mechanism whereby the swamp may be bypassed?

[ToomuchStuff]

My view is that War plunged us into debt...as far back as the Revolutionary War.......and as recently the Gulf Wars which arguably were prosecuted to maintain superpower status through energy independence. Our own resources and technology right here at home make it possible to dominate the world through energy independence....by that's another topic.


Not really, as the linked to article, deals with a balanced budget as a mandate. The ability to take on debt for national defense is something that would be at stake.

[nswef]

I agree with LDAHL here, I cannot see that the pool of "delegates" would be much different from our current crop of Congress people...who seem stuck on their own agendas and refusal to compromise at all.

[Williamsmith]

I believe this article sums up opposition arguements regarding use of the Article V option.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/may/08/a-new-constitutional-convention/

[Alan]

Unless a Constitutional Convention could further limit the Federal Government's influence or authority over the states and their citizens, I see no value in it.
Those who would propose amendments giving the Federal Government more authority over the individual or to memorialize 'rights' that must be paid for by others would usurp the very conditions which make the Constitution worthwhile.

[LDAHL]

Unless a Constitutional Convention could further limit the Federal Government's influence or authority over the states and their citizens, I see no value in it.


I wouldn't see a libertarian/individualist majority as very likely.

If I'm honest, I'm more willing to trust my liberty and property to those dead white slave-owning patriarchs than to the current crop of pols, pundits and professors. It doesn't say much for the times we live in.