What is an “Article V Convention of the States”?
- Chris Cargill
- Jan 15, 2023
- 2 min read
Updated: Jul 21, 2023
Numerous states – now including Montana – are considering legislation calling for an Article V Convention of the states. What does that mean?
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines two ways to amend the document. The first is through the normal process of two-thirds votes in each House, as well as ratification by the states. The other method much less known allows for two thirds of the states to call a Convention to propose amendments (still subject to ratification).
This is not the first time an Article V push has been mounted, as the Congressional Research Service reports here.
In order for a Constitutional Convention to be called, 34 states must submit applications. Right now, 19 states have passed a resolution, six more have passed it in one chamber, and now Montana is considering it. We'll see soon whether Idaho, Wyoming or Washington consider the effort.
What topics might a Constitutional Convention tackle? Consider the effort in the 1980’s, when supporters pushed states to call for a Constitutional Convention to tackle the topic of a balanced budget amendment. But there is a possibility that numerous topics could be considered – if it ever happened. Much could depend on the kind of convention that is called. Generally speaking, there are three different conventions discussed:
· The general convention, which would be free to consider any and all additions to the Constitution, as well as alterations to existing constitutional provisions.
· The limited convention, which would be restricted by its “call,” or authorizing legislation, to consideration of a single issue or group of issues, as specified by the states in their applications.
· The “runaway” convention, frequently identified by convention opponents as one of the dangers inherent in the process, is essentially a limited convention that departs from its prescribed mandate and proceeds to consider proposals in a range of issues that were not included in the original “call.”
In the 1910’s, the United States was one state short of seeing a constitutional convention for the purpose of whether to require the direct election of Senators (instead of via state legislatures). Ultimately, the 17th Amendment was passed and the convention calls were silenced.
In this case, however, it is difficult to see a common issue around which the states are rallying, which leaves some concerned about the “runaway” convention scenario.
Ultimately, it will be up to the states to decide whether a convention is needed. It could be many years before that ends up happening.
I urge all Idaho legislators to attend the COS presentation at “Surge Day” being held at the Basque Center Feb 2. Get the truth of the Article 5 amendment process which our founding fathers found to be vital. They foresaw the overreaching of government which has happened throughout history….”as men are not angels”~ Benjamin Franklin.
The article is incorrect where it says, “Article 5 gives two ways to amend the document.“ Article 5 has many ways to propose amendments, which is what a convention would do, but there’s only one way to amend the document, and that is to have 3/4 of the States approve it.
also, your example of the 17th amendment is a perfect reason not to have a convention. Direct election of senators is one of the bonehead ideas of the last century that has undernd one of the anchors of our republic.
Sorry Chris, MSPC seems great at raising issues with sensational headlines; similar-to, sort-of like the supermarket tabloids that contain some interesting tantalizing tidbits/factoids to get readership attention, but you never scratch below the surface...never real hard data from which conclusions and solutions are reached. You have a staff; how about some dig-deep journalism. Still waiting for your in-depth analysis of the Idaho Education budget.