Talk:Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

message: I'm not sure about this article title (Convention to propose amendment to U.S. Constitution).  Shouldn't it be more like Convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or Convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution?  In any event, whatever the title of the article is, it should be in the opening sentence, as per the usual Wikipedia style.  --JW1805 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: "They knew that there would be circumstances in which Congress, for self-serving reasons, would ignore valid pleas to amend the Constitution and so the framers established an alternate means of proposing change in the Constitution."
this sort of founding-fathers worship is inappropriate in tone, as is much of the article. 80.168.29.18 09:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: An earlier post of this article indicated that 33 of the 34 applications for a con-con were submitted by the states on the subject of overturning Roe v. Wade.  In fact, there were 16 pro-life applications submitted from 1973-1980, less than half the requisite number of 34.  A useful statistical rundown on subject matter of earlier state applications for the Article V Convention is the chart in The Congressional Record, 92 Congress 1 (Oct. 19, 1971), p. S16519.
   Someone has recently edited these total upward, so that in two or three categories, including taxation, applications have already exceeded the requisite two-thirds of the states.  Please document these claims.
Elburts 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaii has submitted a memorial to congress supporting other applications, without actually stating that they were making an application. Utesfan100 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Application count

message: I don't understand this piece of the text. Looks interesting, though. I wonder what it really means.
"A federal court case considered but rejected the claim that Congress must call a convention based on the sum total of all applications to date. The court further extended the Coleman doctrine, based on Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433, 1939)that Congress could use military force to compel ratification of proposed amendments by state legislatures. An appeal of the ruling was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the suit it was asserted that failure to obey the text of Article V in fact granted the government the right to veto the direct text of the Constitution and that all members of Congress had, in fact, joined against the lawsuit in order to establish this right of veto for themselves. At no time in the lawsuit did the government reject or deny this assertion even when required to do so under Supreme Court rules. [1]"
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus 11:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning Content

message: I was tempted to make the following part of the main document in the Possible Scope section, but decided not to since it seemed closer to an editorial than a report.
[All the same, it has to be noted that Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation (the governing provision for amendments to that document) requires unanimous consent of the states for amendments proposed by the Congress to go into force, and makes no provision at all for Congress to authorize a Convention to draft even individual amendments, much less a new constitution to replace the Articles. Nevertheless, as was noted at the time (though no one much minded), it exceeded its authority and unconstitutionally (the Articles were the then constitution) delegated its power to draft amendments to the Convention.
Given sufficient popular support, there is no reason the current US Congress, provoked to action by two thirds of the states demanding a new Convention, could not follow the example of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, exceed its own authority, and call, instead of the expected Convention of the States, a Convention of the People. 
It's a pretty safe bet, after all, that no Convention of the States will consent to removal from the federal government of its most undemocratic features, those that accord equal power to the states regardless of population, or in any manner that departs from apportioning power according to population in the direction of apportioning it equally to the states.
Recall, too, that the Philadelphia Convention itself exceeded its own (already illicit) authority and wrote a whole new constitution for the United States. And the Convention then directed that the lawful procedure then in place for ratification requiring unanimous consent of all the states be ignored in favor of a cheeky declaration in Article VII of the new constitution, itself, that it would go into force immediately among the first nine states to ratify it.
Since, if one were demanded, no one would accept that an Article V Convention would have less power than the one in Philadelphia, it is clear that regardless of what Congress told it to do it could simply proceed to draft a new constitution at will, and then also propose an altogether novel method of ratification, one requiring consent of the people consulted in the way that has become customary in our time, and utilized fairly recently in Iraq, the method of a national referendum, perhaps requiring a super-majority.
Who in America today would accept that a Convention drafting a new constitution for the United States of America cannot and ought not to submit its work for ratification, not to the separate states as though the United States of America ought still and forever to be regarded as their mere fabrication and creature and the constitution itself as a mere pact among them, but to the people at large? Who would deny that America is entitled to a constitution actually accepted by us, the people of the United States, rather than merely beginning with an empty brag that it was? Who would reject the opportunity to have, in the US, something better approximating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
And then, depending on what its work looked like, the Convention's production, along with its daring and novel rule of ratification, would be accepted with some degree of the worshipful praise we are used to in connection with the document produced at Philadelphia, or rejected with some contrary degree of vigorous condemnation.]
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus 12:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Scope

message: The article says:
When two-thirds of the state legislatures shall apply - i.e. both houses of the legislature in 34 states - then Article V of the Constitution requires the Congress to "call a convention for proposing amendments."
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature (see Nebraska Legislature), so there cannot be "both houses" in Nebraska. This should be incorporated correctly into the article. grr (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. "Two thirds of the legislature", for Nebraska, is precisely just that: two thirds of Nebraska's legislature. The phrase you take issue with serves only as a clarification of what "two thirds of the legislature" means in the 49 states that have two houses. Possible ambiguity over the definition of "two thirds of the legislature" never existed for Nebraska in the first place, so to add an exception stating that for Nebraska two thirds of its legislature means.....""two thirds of its Legislature would add nothing to the article except to draw undue attention to Nebraska's Legislature. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs an exception for Nebraska

message: I mean the following paragraph:
:"Treatise on Twelve Lights[17] is a non-profit project proposing an Article V Convention; not however for a general purpose, but to advance a single overarching Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The idea is to form a five-fold coalition (one part sacred, four parts secular) of citizens united in sufficient power to enact one arch-amendment. The associated online book by Robert Struble, Jr., concludes with a prototype text for such an amendment, organized into political, economic and cultural categories. As expressed in the book's secondary title, the intent is To Restore America the Beautiful under God and the Written Constitution. Chapter four consists of a detailed political / historical analysis of the Article V convention process."
Isn't that just another piece of individual "political poetry"? -- 85.177.62.204 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  Maybe we should just get rid of the "National Groups Advocating for an Article V Convention" section?  The article was clearly originally written from the standpoint of advocating for a convention (), so that's probably why they were included.  Both those groups are really not very notable, as far as I can tell. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Benwing is correct. That stuff simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to post summaries from the pamphlets of advocacy groups, or whatever that was. Blue Danube (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The disambiguation page linking to this article contains similar questionable language/advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention Meltro (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I've cleaned up the advocacy material on the disambiguation page. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this "Treatise on Twelve Lights" stuff remarkable enough to be included here??

message: Please archive old talk page content rather than deleting it. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#When_pages_get_too_long and Help:Archiving_a_talk_page. 64.81.170.17 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Talk Page

message: I have some concerns about NPOV in this article. It reads more like an advocacy piece for a particular point of view rather than an encyclopedia article. Much of the article seems to be arguing for a certain perspective on Article V conventions without citing any sources. It appears to have mostly been written by non-lawyers. I think the article could benefit greatly from some edits from a lawyer. Over the coming days, I will try to clean things up (there are a lot of grammar / usage mistakes, etc), make it more balanced, and add more cites to scholarly sources. The first edits I have made today were just rearranging the order of the article. The introduction, which should only be a paragraph or two, was longer all the rest of the article. I have shifted most of this content into the body of the article, cleaned up some of the language, and removed a little bit of the extraneous, false, or unsourced information. Aureliuslawyer (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, and keep up the good work.  --CapitalR (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm continuing my edits and revisions. I'm slowly working my way through the article to add in better content and more accurate information. Once I've revised the whole thing, I will go over again to polish the language and make what I've written read more smoothly.Aureliuslawyer (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article problems

message: Is there a cite for this portion of the history section:
"States began applying to Congress for an Article V 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 such a convention."
The number of applications, cited in the Cong. Rec. was 34 in 1981.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoBiggie (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History section error?

message: I made a bunch of edits today and yesterday, and am through for the time being.71.88.58.198 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I think that sections 2 and 3 need to be switched.  "Permissible scope of proposed amendments" should come after "Permissible scope of applications to Congress".  I'll go ahead and make that change, which will make this article much more chronological; after all, the applications come before the proposed amendments.71.88.58.198 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.71.88.58.198 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sprucing up article

message: What I mean is: okay, 34 states call for a constitutional convention and Congress calls for it to be convened.  Now what?  Who goes to this convention?  A single delegate from each state?  One for each state representative?  One for each state representative and senator?  How do they eventually settle on the proposals they want to submit for ratification?  Does each state's delegation vote and then they tally the state by state results?  Or do they pool all the delegates together and have one big vote?  In either case, is it just a simple majority vote?  2/3 majority?  3/4 majority?  Or maybe they don't vote at all.  Maybe they just have a big cage fighting tournament and the winner gets to choose what amendments get proposed.
Seriously, though, just curious.  I didn't see it discussed anywhere.  I mean for a constitutional convention that was called for one specific amendment maybe this would not be an issue.  If they got the 34 states to call for the convention in the first place they're probably all in agreement that it should be proposed for ratification.  But on the other hand, suppose the amendment was something favored by small states.  The largest 16 states have 340 representatives and senators in congress.  So if delegates are sent to the convention in proportion to the state's representation in congress (like the way electoral college votes are apportioned) it's conceivable that the will of 34 small states could be thwarted by 16 larger states.  However, if it's 1 state gets 1 vote then the the 34 that called it are guaranteed to get their way.  
I can easily see how the process could lead to some sort of constitutional crisis if it's not spelled out somewhere.  Either way -- whether it's a hole in the process or if it is actually spelled out somewhere -- it might be worth explaining in the article.  It's something that jumped out at me while reading this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.66.254 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The convention would make its own rules of procedure.  Each state would decide how to send delegates.71.88.58.198 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How does a constitutional convention work once it has been convened?

message: There seems to be a slow-motion edit-war going on.  But no one is talking about it here at the talk page.  Shall we?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss

message: There needs to be better discussion about what causes are being promoted using the Article V method.  It is not sufficient to state that Vermont, etc, adopted resolutions calling for a convention, without stating what is motivating the vote.  Is there a defined issue?  Or is the convention meant to discuss any possible amendment? --Zfish118 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, and think the answer to your question is "both." There are folks currently trying to call a convention for a balanced budget amendment , then there's the Convention of the States people who are just trying to call a convention in general to "reign in the federal government" , and then there's Wolf PAC, which is trying to call the convention to overturn Citizens United . These are the three current nationwide efforts I'm aware of. So perhaps we should redo the lead to summarize these three current efforts and their individual purposes. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear examples in the lead Suggestion 

message: It would seem that as of 2015 congress has begun to officially and legally count the applications as well as instances of rescission.  Please take a look at http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorials.aspx
As of now it looks like it is just a list and does not answer if congress is using just a simple numerical count, counting only same subject, allowing recissions, but the fact that it is an official government website that is tabulating the application I would think should be notable enough for mention here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.72.235.114 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New developments 

message: One sentence is criticized as possible original research:
  
"The Constitutional Convention of 1787, which gave us the U.S. Constitution, was called as a "limited" convention, but ended up not being limited.[original research?]"
This is discussed, for example in John C. Miller's authoritative biography of Alexander Hamilton (1959), p154.  "It was generally expected that the Constitutional Convention would do no more than recommend changes in the Articles of Confederation.  Virtually all the discussion that had taken place prior to May, 1787, had revolved round the question of revitalizing the Articles; little had been said of establishing a wholly new form of government."
Other biographies of the founders contain the same information.  I would suggest this is common knowledge, requiring no specific citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.219.156.124 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is my understanding as well, that the initial expectation was simply amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and that the convention went way beyond these expectations (or bounds?) and crafted a new (better in my opinion) form of government. It should be easy to cite this as being true.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this content for now as I couldn't easily find a source verifying it. However, if someone can find an acceptable source, please go ahead and re-add the information with sourcing. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research? 

message: The entire article seems to follow the fringe positions of FOAVC, mirroring some of the same errors in their websites.  This is a highly politicized issue and should get much more careful vetting since biased sources abound.  Given the likelihood that the 34-state threshold will be reached in 2017, this article should be fixed since a lot of people will come here.  Some specific problems:
* The 700 application number is total BS.  No one but the FOAVC pitches that number, and the FOAVC list was repeatedly found to have errors.  They have reduced their (inflated) count to 558 as of Dec. 2016.  The curated and academic sources put the actual number at 400 and change.  The most accurate and up-to-date source  The Article V Library puts it at 429 applications plus 29 rescission as of December 2016.
* Paulson's work is over 20 years old now and academics have widely rejected his criteria.
* The notion that states cannot withdraw their applications is a fringe view.
* The last 2 years has seen significant publications of research in this area, particularly by Natelson which is not represented in the article.
* The Wikipedia article List of state applications for an Article V Convention is an embarrassment and should not be linked to.  It uses a made-up nonstandard citation format and is a godawful mess.
* James Kenneth Rogers is not a recognizable academic source.  He is the lawyer for FOAVC, and his bio lists only one short law review note to his name.
* The entire paragraph starting with "Opponents to a convention counter .... " and ending with FN36 Farris, Michael. (1) (2014) is full of incorrect and misleading statements.  Since this is a critical paragraph of the article, it should be corrected and expanded with many more citations.  And the one citation it has is wrong, as that article cited to supports nothing in that paragraph.
In general, I suggest a more liberal reliance on Neale's "Contemporary Issues for Congress" which provides a good NPOV survey of issues, citations to leading authorities, and it is fairly recent (2014).
PubliusSpiritus (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: List of state applications for an Article V Convention also needs cleanup for similar reasons. Perhaps a merge would be appropriate? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: A more recent (March 2016) source than PubliusSpiritus (talk) mentioned in case anyone is interested in reading about the matter: The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments - Contemporary Issues for Congress  It's written by a specialist at Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan government think tank. Calexit (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs cleanup for NPOV, misleading content, and to incorporate latest research 

message: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-joint-resolution/34
I found this proposed amendment to the Constitution that if passed would clarify how an Article V Convention is to take place, I was wondering if it could be mentioned on here? -- sion8  talk page 03:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because no action was ever taken on the bill. Drdpw (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. -- sion8  talk page 01:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible amendment to clarify what an Article V Convention could be 

message: I’ve resectioned the list to be by issue, listed chronologically.  The current efforts at a balanced budget amendment are leveraging the passage of calls that began in the 1970’s.  The two sections should be merged, with note of states that rescinded. Work permit (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts 

message: I already made this edit on the Confederate Constitution's article, but is it noteworthy enough to include in this article that the Confederate Constitution cleared up the ambiguity regarding the scope of an Article V convention's authority by expressly stating that it was limited to considering amendments on issues it was summoned to consider?  Since the article expresses the views of various legal minds I thought it might be noteworthy as the Confederate Framers were largely taking what they thought was the correct interpretation of the US Constitution and made it more explicit regarding certain issues.  Emperor001 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to the Confederate Constitution

message: I've read the opinion piece this section references:
* 
It seems to me everything in that piece is already covered in the Permissible scope sections.  Lets discuss if I'm missing something---- Work permit (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this oped isn't adding anything that isn't already covered (with better sourcing) elsewhere in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: You were spot-on Work permit. The added paragraph simply restated information already given—using solid sources. Drdpw (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits and Costs of Invoking Article V

message: Sorry, but a corporate liability lawyer has no mpre authprity on the article subject than Joe Blow from down the street does...not to mention, the basis for his position on the matter is.completely  ludicrous. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content that is qn in unqualofird opinion of a non¬expert