Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods by which the nation's founding charter may be amended. The first, proposal of amendments by Congress, requires the adoption of an amendment or amendments by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. The second, generally referred to as the "Article V Convention," authorizes the states to apply for a convention to propose an amendment or amendments. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states—34 at present—apply for a convention, Congress is directed by the Constitution to convene one. All proposed amendments require the approval of three-fourths of the states—38 at present—in order to become part of the Constitution. While the Article V Convention option was the subject of advocacy campaigns from the 1960s through the 1980s, it was largely dormant for two decades thereafter. The past 10 years, however, have seen a gradual resurgence of interest in and support for the Article V Convention alternative. Advocacy groups across a wide range of the political spectrum are pushing for conventions to consider various amendments to remedy what they regard as legislative and policy deadlock at the federal level. Dramatic progress in communications technology during this period has arguably facilitated this development. In the past, the need to mobilize support, coupled with time limitations on most state legislative sessions, guaranteed that an organized movement would require a considerable period to develop public awareness and support and to move the application process forward. The comparatively swift emergence of a range of new convention advocacy organizations suggests that the time-consuming organization and development once considered prerequisite to an effective Article V Convention advocacy movement has been greatly compressed, and that much of the infrastructure previously considered necessary for such a campaign might be avoided altogether. This report opens with a brief overview of the provisions of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which established the alternative procedures for proposing amendments to the states. It then addresses, from the standpoint of policy, the role of Congress in calling a convention, the form and function of Article V conventions, the amendments they might propose, the ratification process, and such ancillary issues as the role of the President. A companion report, CRS Report R44435, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments , provides tracking and policy analysis of current activity in Congress, the states, and the Article V Convention advocacy community. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress , provides comprehensive information and analysis of the convention mechanism, including a detailed examination of constitutional and statutory provisions, origins and original intent at the Constitutional Convention, case studies of major campaigns for an Article V Convention, and a review of the role of the states in the process. As noted directly above, Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two procedures to amend the nation's fundamental charter. The first, "Proposal by Congress," 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.... The second, the "Article V Convention" alternative, requires Congress, "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States"—34 at present—to call "a Convention for Proposing Amendments...." 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...." Both modes of amendment share key constitutional requirements. Amendments proposed either by Congress or an Article V Convention must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states—38 at present. Congress has authority to choose the method of ratification in the states. The options are ratification by ad hoc conventions called by the states for the specific purpose of considering the ratification, or ratification by the legislatures of the states. Here again, the three-fourths requirement applies in both instances. In addition, over the past century, three elements not included in the Constitution have been customarily incorporated in the ratification process when Congress proposes amendments. As precedents, they would likely be followed, but would not necessarily be required for an amendment or amendments proposed by an Article V Convention. First, amendments are not incorporated into the existing text of the constitution as adopted in 1788, but are included as supplementary articles. Second, Congress may set a time limit on the ratification process. Beginning with the 18 th Amendment, proposed in 1917, and continuing with the 20 th through 26 th Amendments, Congress set a seven-year time limit on ratification. Proposed amendments covered by this provision must be approved by the requisite number of states in order to become part of the Constitution. Finally, the Constitution does not require approval of proposed amendments by the President. Nor are amendments duly proposed by Congress or an Article V Convention subject to the President's veto or pocket veto. Thirty-three amendments have been proposed to the states by Congress to date, beginning with 12 amendments proposed in 1789, 10 of which were ratified as the Bill of Rights. Twenty-seven of the 33 were approved by the states; 26 of them are currently in effect, while one, the 18 th Amendment that prohibited the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors," was ultimately repealed by the 21 st Amendment. By comparison, the Article V Convention option has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of activity in the states. Proponents of various amendments took concerted efforts to secure the necessary number of applications several times in the 20 th century. The most successful example to date was the early-20 th century campaign for an amendment to provide popular election of U.S. Senators. Although only 25 of 48 states applied for a convention, this effort is frequently credited with "prodding" the Senate to join the House of Representatives in proposing what became the 17 th Amendment in 1912. Two Article V Convention campaigns of the 1960s-1980s came even closer to the constitutional requirement, but were ultimately unable to attain applications from the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. During the last third of the 20 th century, two campaigns came close to achieving the constitutional threshold of 34 state applications for an Article V Convention. The first sought a convention to consider an amendment authorizing states to use criteria other than strict equality of population in apportioning districts in one chamber of their legislatures. The second advocated a convention to consider an amendment to require a balanced federal budget under most circumstances. Both campaigns ultimately failed to attain their goal. Various reasons are cited for their failure, including second thoughts in state legislatures; for the apportionment amendment, the death of Senator Everett Dirksen, its principal advocate; changing public attitudes concerning the issues; and, in the case of the balanced federal budget amendment campaign, congressional legislation to address concerns over the persistent budget deficits. Many advocates assert, however, that convention applications remain valid indefinitely and that those submitted at any time in the past still count toward the constitutional threshold. Three decades have passed since the high-water mark of the balanced budget amendment convention campaign in the 1980s; consequently, few current Members of either chamber have had the occasion to consider the prospect of an Article V Convention. This situation may, however, be changing, as new communications technology and changing patterns in issue advocacy may offer convention proponents ways to counteract traditional deterrents to the convention alternative. In the past, several factors tended to impede the progress of campaigns for an Article V Convention. The Constitution's stringent requirement that a super-majority of two-thirds of the state legislatures must apply for an Article V Convention has always served as the principal deterrent to calling a convention that did not enjoy broad support. This was intended by the founders; as Supreme Court Justice and constitutional scholar Joseph Story noted, "[t]he great principle to be sought is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy; to secure due deliberation, and caution; and to follow experience, rather than to open a way for experiments, suggested by mere speculation or theory." Moreover, it was not easy, even after the advent of mass electronic communications in the 20 th century, to mount a campaign able to secure convention applications from a large number of states. As late as the 1960s through the 1980s, it took time for a grass-roots movement to emerge, communicate with like-minded individuals and groups, coalesce around an agreed-upon program, establish a national structure of groups sharing the same interest to promote a particular cause, and gradually to develop the ancillary skills necessary for nationwide advocacy, most importantly in the state legislatures. The measured pace of the legislative process in the states also traditionally served as a check to a convention. While most state legislatures convene annually, their sessions are frequently limited by law. Thirty-two states place some form of time constraint on their sessions, frequently limiting them to as little as 60 to 90 session days. Convention advocates arguably faced a daunting task in securing timely action on a convention proposal, given the generally hectic pace and urgent demands faced by most state legislators during their sessions. In the case of the balanced budget amendment campaign, seven years of organized activity were needed to gain applications from 32 state legislatures. As noted previously, from the 1960s through the early 1980s, supporters of the Article V Convention alternative mounted campaigns to consider diverse issues. Although these gained broad support, none attained the constitutional threshold of 34 state applications. The failure of these efforts was followed by nearly three decades of relative inactivity.