Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods of amendment for the nation's fundamental charter. In the first, Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both chambers, proposes amendments to the states, which then consider the proposal; if three-fourths (38 at present) approve the amendment, it is ratified, and becomes part of the Constitution. Beginning with the Bill of Rights in 1789, this method has been used to propose 33 amendments, 27 of which have been ratified. Article V also offers an alternative method in which a convention to consider amendments is called by Congress on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34 at present). The second constitutional amendment option, generally known as the "Article V Convention," has never been successfully used to propose an amendment to the Constitution. This report offers perspectives for Congress on the Article V Convention, opening with an overview of the provisions in Article V that established the convention procedure. The report further examines its origins at the Constitutional Convention of 1787; the history of the convention alternative, focusing on three major 20 th century campaigns to convene a constitutional convention; and the role of the states in the Article V Convention process. A companion report, CRS Report R42589, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress , provides a comprehensive analysis of congressional issues, including information on the contemporary resurgence of interest in the convention alternative and the authority of Congress to call a convention; provide a framework and procedures for an Article V Convention; and submit proposed amendments to the states for ratification. It also identifies other elements in the process, including the President's role; the operation of checks and balances in the convention alternative; questions concerning a convention's composition and method of voting; and the function of the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. Congress is daily confronted with many competing demands for its time and energy; in light of these, what compelling interest should Congress have in the Article V Convention alternative in the 21 st century? First, Article V vests important and exclusive responsibilities over the amendment process in Congress. As noted previously, these include the right to propose amendments directly to the states for their consideration, and the responsibility to call a convention for proposing amendments on application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V Convention, Congress has historically laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including receiving, judging, and recording state applications; establishing procedures to summon a convention; setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations, determining the number and selection process of its delegates; setting internal convention procedures, and providing arrangement for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states. These issues are addressed in detail in the companion to this report, CRS Report R42589, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress . It may be argued that there is no pressing need for Congress to examine its Article V options and responsibilities. Historical precedent suggests that attaining petitions from two-thirds of the states necessary for an Article V Convention in a timely manner is a difficult obstacle, as demonstrated by several unsuccessful convention drives in the latter part of the 20 th century. These fell short of the two-thirds mark, despite the vigorous efforts of organized support groups over a period of several years; moreover, until recently, there has been little apparent interest in the Article V Convention mechanism in the states since the 1980s. Judging by the historical record, the process might arguably be described as a footnote to constitutional history. The measured pace of the legislative process in the states has also traditionally served as an additional check to haste in calling such a convention. For instance, in the case of the balanced budget amendment convention drive of the 1970s and 1980s, it took seven years for an organized campaign to gain convention applications from 32 states, two short of the two-thirds required in Article V. Although the Article V Convention device is not widely known or understood at present, it could provide a vehicle for issue organizations and coalitions seeking amendments to the Constitution. Given the extraordinary speed and flexibility of contemporary social media and communications technology, interested organizations could conceivably launch an Article V Convention campaign for a specific amendment or amendments, or perhaps for a general constitutional convention, within a shortened time frame. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it took time for "grass roots" efforts to emerge, form organizations to promote their cause, communicate with like-minded groups, undertake campaigns in state legislatures, and generally to learn and perfect the ancillary skills necessary for nationwide issue advocacy. By comparison, the contemporary availability of instant interpersonal electronic communication, email, and other social network media can facilitate remarkably rapid growth in awareness of a political phenomenon. For instance, MoveOn.org emerged in 1998 as an ad hoc on-line coalition opposed to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and grew quickly to a membership of 5 million. More recently, the Tea Party movement originated in late 2008 with online discussions in conservative-oriented social networking sites and frequent conference calls among organizers. On February 19, 2009, a cable network business commentator made an on-air call for rallies to oppose government spending; his emotionally charged remarks were picked up by cable news networks and various websites, and went "viral." In just two months the newly named "Tea Party" movement was able to convene over 600,000 supporters in more than 600 demonstrations around the nation. In a related development, over the past few years, interest has grown in several new constitutional amendment proposals, such as the "Repeal Amendment," which would provide for the repeal of any federal legislation by a vote of disapproval in the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Another recent proposal would repeal the 17 th Amendment, and restore the election of U.S. Senators to state legislatures. Given the advances in communications technology cited above, groups supporting these measures or others might find the Article V Convention to be an attractive vehicle for the promotion of their proposed amendments. Under these circumstances, Congress might be called on to revisit the Article V Convention issue for the first time since the 1980s. The obstacles, however, remain daunting, even in the face of rapid change: the Constitution sets a considerable hurdle for the Article V Convention process by requiring that applications for a convention be made by the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. Further, any amendments proposed would face the same task of securing approval of three-fourths of the states before they were ratified. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods for amending the nation's fundamental charter. The first method, and to date the only one used successfully, authorizes proposal of amendments by Congress: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... which ... 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; .... As noted in Article V, amendments ratified by the states under either procedure are indistinguishable and have equal force; they are both "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution ...." Congress has used this first, or "congressional," amendment process to propose 33 amendments to the states since 1789, 27 of which have been successfully ratified to date. Key constitutional elements include the following: Amendments proposed by Congress must be approved by two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The proposed amendment must be subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states, 38 at present. Alternatively, Congress may direct that ratifications shall be by ad hoc conventions called by the states for the specific purpose of considering the ratification. The same three-fourths requirement for adoption would also apply if Congress voted to require ratification by ad hoc state conventions. Over the years, Congress has added four additional elements in the amendment process that were not included in the text of Article V. First, the congressional vote to propose an amendment must be approved by a two -thirds vote of the Members present and voting , a quorum being present , in both the House and Senate. The Supreme Court ruled in National Prohibition Cases of 1920 that Congress had the authority to set these thresholds. Second, amendments are not incorporated into the existing text of the Constitution as adopted in 1788, but rather, are included as supplementary articles. Third, beginning in the 20 th century, Congress has required that ratifications must be roughly contemporaneous, and has set a seven-year deadline for the 18 th and 20 th Amendments and all subsequent proposed amendments. This practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 1921 ruling, Dillon v. Gloss , later confirmed in 1939 in Coleman v. Miller . Finally, the Constitution does not require approval of proposed amendments by Presidents, who have no function in the process of proposing an amendment to the states. Their approval or signature has no bearing on the process, and they cannot veto or pocket veto proposed amendments that have been approved by the requisite congressional majorities or by an Article V Convention. The second method provided in Article V empowers the states to petition Congress for a convention to consider amendments. This procedure is generally known as the Article V Convention. Key constitutional elements include the following: The legislatures of two-thirds of the states, 34 at present, must present applications to Congress. Congress shall then "call a Convention for proposing Amendments." Amendments proposed by an Article V Convention must also be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress may provide for consideration of such amendment either by state legislatures or ad hoc state ratification conventions, at its discretion.