Jonah Patel
The United States Constitution's Article V outlines a two-thirds state legislature requirement (34 states) for Congress to call a convention to propose amendments. This process, never previously invoked, has gained traction among conservative activists seeking to curtail federal government powers. Four notable campaigns, including the Balanced Budget Amendment and Wolf-PAC, have already convinced 28 states to call for a convention. While some doubt it would exceed its scope, others fear a runaway convention that could rewrite fundamental laws. The absence of rules for an Article V Convention in the Constitution further fuels concerns about its potential impact on democracy and economic stability.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of states required to call for a convention | 34 (two-thirds) |
| Number of states that have called for a convention as of 2025 | 28 |
| Number of states required to ratify amendments | Three-fourths |
| Number of states that had called for a balanced budget amendment as of 1981 | 30 |
| Number of states that had adopted Wolf-PAC's application as of 2022 | 3 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) must call for an amendment convention
Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for proposing amendments. It states that Congress must call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) request one. This provision has never been invoked, and there are currently campaigns from conservative activists to organise the first convention since 1787. These campaigns include the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) campaign, the Convention of States (COS) campaign, the Wolf-PAC campaign, and the term limits campaign. Together, they have convinced 28 states to call for a convention as of 2025, just shy of the required number.
The potential for a "runaway convention" is a significant concern surrounding the Article V convention. With no rules or limitations outlined in the Constitution, there is a risk that delegates could propose amendments that revoke cherished rights, such as the right to peaceful protest, freedom of religion, or privacy. Additionally, there are no restrictions on corporate influence, raising the possibility of corporations pouring money into the convention to further their interests.
Despite these concerns, some argue that the U.S. has extensive experience with state constitutional conventions, with over 600 held to amend state constitutions, and there is little evidence that they have exceeded their scope. However, the lack of rules and procedures for an Article V Convention remains a critical issue. While some suggest leaving these questions to the delegates, others advocate for Congress to enact comprehensive procedures beforehand to prevent a potential "runaway convention."
The role of Congress in an amendment convention is also important to consider. While Congress is responsible for "calling" the convention, the states play a significant role in submitting petitions and potentially limiting the convention to a particular subject matter. The interplay between Congress and the states in controlling the convention's scope is complex and has been the subject of legal debates.
Alabama's Amendment 406: Ratification and Its Impact
You may want to see also
Congress must call and control an Article V convention
Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines two methods for proposing amendments. The first method involves both the House and the Senate proposing a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote of the members present. This method has been used for all amendments proposed so far.
The second method, which has never been used, states that Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments upon the request of two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states). This is referred to as an Article V Convention. While Congress is required to call this convention when enough states request it, there are no rules outlined in the Constitution to control or regulate it. This has led to concerns about a potential "runaway convention" that could exceed its scope and propose amendments that revoke cherished rights.
The debate surrounding Congress's control of an Article V Convention centres on the interpretation of state applications. Some argue that if states can limit a convention to a specific subject matter, then Congress must adhere to those limitations. However, others, like Professor Michael Paulsen, argue that only applications for an unrestricted convention are valid. This interpretation gives Congress more flexibility in controlling the convention's agenda.
Despite these differing interpretations, Congress's role in calling and potentially controlling an Article V Convention is significant. The absence of clear rules in the Constitution highlights the importance of congressional involvement to ensure the convention operates within its intended scope. While there are concerns about the potential for a "runaway convention," historical precedents, such as state constitutional conventions, suggest that delegates have generally operated within their delegated authority. Nonetheless, the lack of rules and the potential for special interests to influence the process remain points of contention.
Exploring Electoral College Reform: Constitutional Amendment Needed?
You may want to see also
Article V convention campaigns have differing goals
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress must propose amendments whenever two-thirds of both houses deem it necessary or when two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) request it. However, there are no rules outlined in the Constitution regarding how an Article V Convention should be conducted. This has led to concerns about the potential consequences of such a convention.
Despite these concerns, there are currently four major campaigns advocating for an Article V Convention: the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) campaign, the Convention of States (COS) campaign, the Wolf-PAC campaign, and the term limits campaign. Each of these campaigns has a different focus, but they have collectively convinced 28 states to call for a convention, just shy of the required 34 states.
The Balanced Budget Amendment campaign seeks to require Congress to balance the federal budget, making it more difficult for lawmakers to raise taxes. The Convention of States campaign, endorsed by 19 states, aims to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, including abolishing the income tax and narrowing Congress's regulatory powers. Proponents of this campaign argue that it will restore constitutional, limited government and curb federal government overreach.
The Wolf-PAC campaign, on the other hand, emerged from the Occupy Wall Street movement and calls for a convention to address campaign finance reform. They propose amendments that would revoke the constitutional rights of corporations and limit the amount of money politicians can raise from any person or entity. Finally, the term limits campaign advocates for imposing term limits on officials and members of Congress.
While these campaigns have differing goals, they all share a common thread of seeking to limit the power of the federal government in some way, whether it be through fiscal restraints, regulatory reforms, or term limits. However, critics argue that an Article V Convention could lead to a "`runaway convention", where delegates exceed their scope and rewrite the Constitution in a way that threatens Americans' constitutional rights.
Amending the Constitution: A Complex Process
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States [1938]: State Convention Records and Laws](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71KMq9r2YgL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Runaway conventions could exceed their scope
The possibility of a "runaway convention" is one of the most frequently cited concerns regarding an Article V convention, in which delegates exceed their original mandate and propose sweeping, unintended changes to the Constitution. This concern is based on the idea that an Article V convention could bypass its intended purpose and threaten foundational constitutional principles. However, there are several reasons why this scenario is unlikely to occur.
Firstly, state legislatures can define the scope of the convention through their resolutions, limiting the amendments that can be proposed. Additionally, any proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states), making it nearly impossible for any extreme or unpopular changes to be adopted. This is more states than are required to call a convention in the first place, providing a safeguard against runaway conventions.
Secondly, delegates to an Article V convention are chosen by the states and act as legal agents of the states. State legislatures can provide binding instructions to their delegates and recall any delegates who exceed their authority or instructions. In the unlikely event that a majority of convention delegates went rogue, Congress would not be obligated to send the illicit amendment proposals to the states for ratification.
Thirdly, the courts could intervene to declare illicit proposals void in the case of extreme proposals that threaten foundational constitutional principles. While the courts may not have a strong track record in interpreting broad constitutional language, they have demonstrated an ability to enforce clear, technical matters of procedure and agency law.
Furthermore, the idea of a runaway convention contradicts the historical experience of state constitutional conventions. Over 600 state constitutional conventions have been held to amend state constitutions, with little evidence that any of them have exceeded their scope. This demonstrates that procedural safeguards are highly effective in preventing a runaway scenario.
In conclusion, while the concern about a "runaway convention" is understandable, it is largely unfounded due to the presence of multiple built-in protections. The possibility of a runaway convention is virtually impossible, and the scenario is designed only to frighten and confuse.
Amendments: Our Constitution's Living Evolution Simplified
You may want to see also
Congress must propose amendments to the Constitution
Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for proposing amendments. It states that whenever two-thirds of both houses of Congress deem it necessary, they shall propose amendments to the Constitution. This means that Congress has the power to initiate the amendment process without the involvement of the states.
Congress can propose amendments by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This process allows Congress to directly propose and consider amendments without the need for a convention. This method has been used successfully in the past, although it has been half a century since the last successful amendment proposal by Congress.
However, it's important to note that Congress also plays a crucial role in the other method of proposing amendments, which involves a convention. When two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) apply for a convention, Congress is responsible for "calling" or convening the convention. This distinction is important because it gives Congress a degree of control over the process and ensures that the convention operates within its intended scope.
The concern of a ""runaway convention"" has been raised, suggesting that a convention could exceed its intended purpose and lead to radical changes. To prevent this, Congress can enact comprehensive procedures before the convention is assembled. Additionally, any amendments proposed by a convention would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, providing another layer of protection against drastic changes.
In summary, while Congress must propose amendments when requested by two-thirds of the states, they also have a role in shaping the convention process. The requirement for a supermajority in Congress and state legislatures, along with ratification by three-fourths of the states, ensures that any amendments to the Constitution undergo a rigorous and deliberate process, safeguarding against hasty or extreme revisions to our nation's founding document.
Amendments: Evolution of the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Two-thirds of state legislatures, or 34 states, must call for an amendment convention for Congress to be required to hold one.
As of September 22, 1981, thirty states had requested a balanced budget amendment. By 1993, Professor Michael Paulsen argued that 45 states had active applications for an amendment convention, provided that these applications were not limited to a particular subject matter.
As of 2025, 28 states have called for an amendment convention. Four major campaigns for an Article V Convention include the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) campaign, the Convention of States (COS) campaign, the Wolf-PAC campaign, and the term limits campaign.
