View source for Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

{{Short description|Process for amending the U.S. constitution}}
{{About|amending the U.S. Constitution|the proposal to reform and rewrite the Constitution|Second Constitutional Convention of the United States}}
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2013}}
A '''convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution''', also referred to as an '''Article V Convention''', '''state convention''',<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Davis |first=Kenneth C. |title=Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-06-008381-6 |edition=1st |location=New York |pages=596 |author-link=Kenneth C. Davis}}</ref> or '''amendatory convention''' is one of two methods authorized by [[Article Five of the United States Constitution]] whereby amendments to the [[United States Constitution]] may be proposed: on the Application of two thirds of the State legislatures (that is, 34 of the 50) the Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which become law only after [[Ratification#Ratification in the United States Constitution|ratification]] by three-fourths of the [[U.S. state|states]] (38 of the 50). The Article V convention method has never been used; but 33 amendments have been proposed by the other method, a [[supermajority|two-thirds vote]] in both houses of Congress; and [[List of amendments to the United States Constitution|27 of these]] have been ratified by three-fourths of the States.<ref name=CAP>{{cite web|title=The Constitutional Amendment Process|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/|publisher=The U.S. [[National Archives and Records Administration]]|access-date=November 17, 2015}}</ref> Although there has never been a federal constitutional convention since the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|original one]], at the state level more than [[Constituent assembly#State constitutional conventions|230 constitutional conventions]] have assembled in the United States.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Weber|first1=Paul|title=Unfounded Fears: Myths and Realities of a Constitutional Convention|last2=Perry|first2=Barbara|year=1989|pages=81}}</ref>

While there have been calls for an Article V Convention based on a single issue such as the [[balanced budget amendment]], it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor [[Michael Stokes Paulsen]] has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit",<ref name="twsNovW33">Korte, Greg. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-29/balanced-budget-amendment/51480066/1?fullsite=true "Balanced budget amendment push sparks debate"], USA Today (November 29, 2011).</ref> whereas law professor Michael Rappaport<ref>Rappaport, Michael. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2035638 "The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis"], ''Constitutional Commentary'', Vol. 81, p. 53 (2012).</ref> and [[attorney-at-law]] Robert Kelly<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.conventionofstates.com/an_article_v_convention_can_be_limited|title=An Article V Convention Can Be Limited|last=Kelly|first=Robert|website=Convention of States|access-date=March 21, 2016}}</ref> believe that a limited convention is possible.

In recent years, some have argued that state governments should call for such a convention.<ref name=twsDecM9009/><ref name=twsDecMjkkl>{{cite news|author= Gregory Korte|title= Balanced budget amendment push sparks debate|newspaper=USA Today|quote= Some supporters of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution are turning to a method last used by the founding fathers: A constitutional convention.|date= November 29, 2011|url= https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-29/balanced-budget-amendment/51480066/1|access-date= December 14, 2011}}</ref> They include [[Michael Farris (lawyer)|Michael Farris]], [[Lawrence Lessig]], [[Sanford Levinson]], [[Larry Sabato]], [[Jonathan Turley]], [[Mark Levin]], [[Ben Shapiro]], and [[Greg Abbott]].<ref name=twsDecM9009>{{cite news|author= James O'Toole|title= Constitutional convention call gains traction|newspaper= Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|quote= Article V of the Constitution, however, in the same section that set up that procedure, set forth the legal possibility for the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to instruct Congress to call a constitutional convention, a mechanism, in the view of some government critics, whose time has come.|date= December 12, 2011|url= http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11346/1196301-84-0.stm|access-date= December 14, 2011|archive-date= July 28, 2020|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200728141842/https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11346/1196301-84-0.stm|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref name=twsDecM4y4>{{cite news|author= Christopher Shea|title= Time for a Constitutional Convention?|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|quote= As you might guess, they’re coming at the issue from different angles, but they and other conference attendees shared a frustration with the current structure of the government (or recent Supreme Court decisions, or both).|date= November 2, 2011|url= https://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/11/02/time-for-a-constitutional-convention/|access-date= December 14, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Turley|first=Jonathan|title=Real political reform should go beyond campaign finance|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-feb-11-la-oe-turley11-2010feb11-story.html|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|access-date=March 8, 2012|date=2010-02-11}}</ref><ref>[https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf Proposed Amendment by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas (Retrieved May 15, 2018)]</ref><ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/conventionofstates/2018/07/new-comment-by-ben-shapiro-convention-of-states-is-quite-a-good-idea/ (Retrieved June 9, 2018)]</ref> In 2015, [[Citizens for Self-Governance]] launched a nationwide effort to require Congress to call an Article V Convention, through a project called Convention of the States, in a bid to "rein in the federal government".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Sherfinski|first1=David |title=Virginia weighs joining convention of states effort to rein in federal powers |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/virginia-lawmakers-weighing-constitutional-convent/?page=all|access-date=February 25, 2015 |newspaper=Washington Times|date=February 2, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-01-28/convention-of-states-push-hits-halfway-mark-with-nebraska | title=Nebraska wins! State legislature becomes 17th nationwide to call for Convention of States}}</ref> {{As of|2024|df=US}}, CSG's resolution has passed in 19 states.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application |title=Progress Map: States that have passed the Convention of States Article V application}}</ref> Similarly, the group [[Wolf-PAC]] chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]''. Their resolution has passed in five states.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bogdan|first1=Jennifer | title=At R.I. State House, Wolf-PAC lobbyists made late push |url=http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160620/at-ri-state-house-wolf-pac-lobbyists-made-late-push |access-date=April 10, 2017|newspaper=Providence Journal |date=June 20, 2016}}</ref>

In late 2023, [[The Heritage Foundation]] issued a report titled ''Reconsidering the Wisdom of an Article V Convention of the States''.<ref name="Heritage">{{cite web |last1=Malcolm |first1=John |date=27 October 2023 |title=Reconsidering the Wisdom of an Article V Convention of the States |url=https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/reconsidering-the-wisdom-article-v-convention-the-states |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240214011541/https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/reconsidering-the-wisdom-article-v-convention-the-states |archive-date=14 February 2024 |access-date=12 February 2024 |website=The Heritage Foundation |url-status=unfit |language=en}}</ref>

Organizations opposed to an Article V convention include the [[John Birch Society]], the [[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]], [[Eagle Forum]], [[Common Cause]],<ref name="CRS2017">{{cite web | url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44435.pdf | title=The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments | first = Thomas  |  last = H. Neale | publisher = Congressional Research Service | website = fas.org | date= November 15, 2017 | access-date=May 6, 2021}}</ref> [[Cato Institute]],<ref>{{cite web | last1=Olson | first1=Olson | author-link=Walter Olson | title=An Article V Constitutional Convention? Wrong Idea, Wrong Time | url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/article-v-constitutional-convention-wrong-idea-wrong-time | date=January 12, 2016 | work=[[Cato Institute]] | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref> and the [[Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity]].<ref>{{cite web | last1=Dick | first1=Adam | title=A New Constitutional Convention? | url=http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/may/08/a-new-constitutional-convention/ | date=May 8, 2017 | work=[[Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity]] | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref> Law Professor emeritus William A. Woodruff has pointed out that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, a member of the Virginia legislature, a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, and a delegate to the Annapolis Convention that recommended what became the Philadelphia Convention, was opposed to an Article V convention to consider adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Woodruff |first=William |title=Caution and the Constitution: Should There Be an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments? 17 Charleston L. Rev. 27 (2022) |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4211852 |journal=Charleston Law Review |volume=17 |pages=27–94|ssrn=4211852 }}</ref> When asked whether a convention should be called to consider a bill of rights, Madison said, "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second . . . . "<ref name=":0" /> Woodruff urges state legislators who are asked to vote in favor of an application to Congress to call an Article V convention to carefully consider the knowns and unknowns of the convention method before opening Constitutions to a series of unintended consequences.<ref name=":0" /> [[Peter M. Shane]] writes that a convention could be more malapportioned than Congress.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shane |first1=Peter M. |title=Amend the Constitutional Amendment Process |url=https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/04/03/amend-the-constitutional-amendment-process/ |work=Washington Monthly |date=3 April 2023}}</ref> Amendments pending ratifications could polarize state-level politics.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Feingold |first1=Russ |title=The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It |page=221}}</ref>

==History==
[[File: Washington Constitutional Convention 1787.jpg|thumb|right|A painting depicting the signing of the [[United States Constitution]]]]

At the time the 1787 [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] convened in Philadelphia, eight state constitutions included an amendment mechanism. Amendment-making power rested with the legislature in three of the states and in the other five it was given to specially elected conventions. The Articles of Confederation provided that amendments were to be proposed by Congress and ratified by the unanimous vote of all thirteen state legislatures. This was seen by the Federalists as a major flaw in the Articles, as it created a nearly insurmountable obstacle to constitutional reform. The amendment process crafted during the Constitutional Convention, [[James Madison]] later wrote in The [[Federalist No. 43]], was designed to establish a balance between pliancy and rigidity:<ref name="England Spalding">{{cite web |last1= England |first1= Trent |last2= Spalding |first2= Matthew |name-list-style= amp |title= Essays on Article V: Amendments |url= http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/5/essays/129/amendments |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120421180046/http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/5/essays/129/amendments |url-status= unfit |archive-date= April 21, 2012 |publisher= [[The Heritage Foundation]] |access-date= July 31, 2014}}</ref>
{{blockquote|It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover equally enables the General and the State Governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.}}

===Creation of the amendment process===
[[File:Constitutional amendment process (USA).png|thumb|upright=.85|The U.S. constitutional amendment process]]
One of the main reasons for the 1787 Convention was that the [[Articles of Confederation]] required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for the national government to take action. This system had proved unworkable, and the newly written Constitution sought to address this problem.

The first proposal for a method of amending the Constitution offered in the Constitutional Convention, contained in the [[Virginia Plan]], sought to circumvent the national legislature, stating that "the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required."<ref>Farrand, Max. ''The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787'' (1937), vol. 1, p. 22. Also see "[http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a5s2.html Records of the Federal Convention]", ''The Founders Constitution'', ed. [[Philip Kurland]] and [[Ralph Lerner (philosopher)|Ralph Lerner]] (U. Chicago Press).</ref> This was subsequently modified by the [[Committee of Detail]] to include a process whereby Congress would call for a constitutional convention on the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures.<ref name="England Spalding"/>

During the debate on the Committee of Detail's report, [[James Madison]] expressed concern about the lack of detail in the article regarding how the convention amendment process would work, stating that "difficulties might arise as to the form" a convention would take.<ref>Farrand, Max. ''The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787'' (1937), [https://books.google.com/books?id=n0oWAAAAYAAJ&dq=Farrand%20Max&pg=PA629 vol. 2, pp. 629–30]</ref> He later proposed removing reference to the convention amendment process, thus giving the national legislature sole authority to propose amendments whenever it thought necessary or when two-thirds of the states applied to the national legislature.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|p=1007}} Several delegates voiced opposition to the idea of the national legislature retaining sole power to propose constitutional amendments.{{sfn|Rogers|2007}} [[George Mason]] argued from the floor of the Convention that it "would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account." Mason added that, "no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive."<ref>Caplan, Russell. ''Constitutional Brinksmanship'', [https://archive.org/details/constitutionalbr00capl/page/27 pp. 27–29]; quoting Max Farrand, ed., ''The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787'', 4 vols., (New Haven: Yale University Press, revised ed., 1937), 1:22, 202–03, 629.</ref> In response to these concerns, the Convention unanimously voted to add the language allowing states to apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.{{sfn|Rogers|2007}}

==Permissible scope of applications to Congress==
A frequent question is whether applications from the states can omit to mention subject matter, and instead request an unlimited convention. Practice suggests that separate unlimited applications submitted to Congress at different times are not allowed.{{sfn|Paulsen|1993|p=764}} Article V itself calls for "the application of the legislatures" instead of calling for plural "applications".

States have requested that Congress convene an Article V convention to propose amendments on a variety of subjects. According to the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]], Congress has, however, never officially tabulated the applications, nor separated them by subject matter.<ref>Ross, Rodney. Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration, March 12, 2007 letter to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont, "Unfortunately there is no single category for petitions asking for amendments to the Constitution, let alone for amendments by the convention route."</ref> On at least one occasion though, the ''[[Congressional Record]]'' has included such a tabulation, which indicated that, as of September 22, 1981, thirty states had made a request for a balanced budget amendment.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100529135157/http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/CR%20127%20%20%20Pg%2021538%20%20Yr%201981-Summary%20of%20Applications.JPG 129 Cong. Rec. S21538] (1981) (collecting applications calling for a constitutional convention since 1974).</ref> In 1993, professor Michael Paulsen and his research staff assembled a listing of all state applications to date, but neither Paulsen's list, nor any other, can be safely characterized as "complete" since there may very well be state applications that have been overlooked and/or forgotten.{{sfn|Paulsen|1993}}

In two law review articles in 1993 and again in 2011, Paulsen argued that state applications for an Article V convention limited to a particular subject matter are invalid and that only applications that include a call for an unrestricted convention are valid.{{sfn|Paulsen|1993}} If Paulsen's criteria that state applications must not be limited to particular subject matter and that a rescission by states are valid, then forty-five applications from states were active as of 1993. Paulsen argues that Congress has had ample direction to call a convention on these grounds.{{sfn|Paulsen|1993|p=764}}{{sfn|Rogers|2007|p=1018}}

There has been no definitive determination by the Supreme Court regarding the state convention amendment method, though it has handled several cases and an array of arguments on the scope which Amendments can ultimately affect. The 1939 case ''Coleman v. Miller'', which questioned whether a state legislature could relinquish endorsement of an Amendment pertaining to child labor, decided in part, "the question whether a reasonable time had elapsed since submission of the proposal was a nonjusticiable political question, the kinds of considerations entering into deciding being fit for Congress to evaluate, and the question of the effect of a previous rejection upon a ratification was similarly nonjusticiable, because the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment precedent of congressional determination 'has been accepted.{{'"}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://constitution.findlaw.com/article5/annotation03.html|title=Annotation 3 - Article V|website=Findlaw}}</ref> The case is seen to stand as authority for the proposition that at least some decisions with respect to the proposal and ratifications of constitutional amendments are exclusively within the purview of Congress, either because they are textually committed to Congress or because the courts lack adequate criteria of determination to pass on them.

==Permissible scope of proposed amendments==
[[File:Constitution We the People.jpg|thumb|right|"We the People" in an original edition of the Constitution]]
Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are various questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited.{{sfn|Rogers|2007}}

The language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received. Comments made at the time the Constitution was adopted indicate that it was understood when the Constitution was drafted that Congress would have no discretion. In ''[[The Federalist]]'', Alexander Hamilton stated that when the proper number of applications had been received, Congress was "obliged" to call a convention and that "nothing is left to the discretion of Congress."<ref>Hamilton, Alexander. ''Federalist Papers'', [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed85.asp no. 85] (1788). In the third to last paragraph, Hamilton states:
<blockquote>But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."

The words of this article are peremptory: the Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two-thirds or three-fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration.</blockquote></ref> James Madison also affirmed Hamilton's contention that Congress was obligated to call a convention when the requisite number of states requested it.<ref>Madison, James. [http://www.constitution.org/jm/17890102_eve.txt Letter to George Eve, 2 January 1789]. See also Madison's remark in the House, that it is {{nowrap|". . .}} out of the power of Congress to decline complying," in 1 ''Annals of Congress'', 1 Congress 1, (May 5, 1789), p. 260; also available in ''Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=H1gUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA47 p. 47].</ref>

In the North Carolina debates about ratifying the Constitution, [[James Iredell]], who subsequently became one of the founding members of the Supreme Court, stated that when two-thirds of states have applied to Congress for a convention, Congress is "under the necessity of convening one" and that they have "no option."<ref>Elliot, Jonathan. ''The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution'' (1937), vol. 4, pp. 177–78. Also available in "[http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a5s10.html Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention]", ''The Founders Constitution'', ed. Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner (U. Chicago Press).</ref>

By citing the Constitution's [[Necessary and Proper Clause]], Congress has tried to enact a statute to regulate how an Article V convention would function. Sponsored by the late Senator [[Sam Ervin]], such a bill passed the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|U.S. Senate]] unanimously in 1971 and again in 1973,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/1272|title=S.1272 - 93rd Congress (1973-1974): Federal Constitutional Convention Procedures Act|date=1973-07-10|website=www.congress.gov|access-date=2019-01-25}}</ref> but the proposed legislation remained bottled up in the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. House of Representatives]] and died both times. Senator [[Orrin Hatch]] made a similar proposal several times in the late 1980s culminating in 1991 with no more success. Opponents to congressional regulation of an Article V convention's operations argue that neither Article I nor Article V of the Constitution grants Congress this power, and that the Founders intended that Congress "have no option." There has been no opportunity for federal courts to decide whether Congress has such authority because such legislation has never been adopted by Congress.

Some scholars believe that states have the power to limit the scope of an Article V convention: [[Larry Sabato]] is one scholar who advanced that view.<ref>Sabato, Larry. ''[[A More Perfect Constitution]]'' (2007).</ref> Some feel that Congress's duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states requested. If the states, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called would likely need to be limited in the way the states requested.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|pp=1014–19}}

If states have the power to limit an Article V convention to a particular subject matter, and Congress only has power to call a convention but no further power to control or regulate it, then a potential concern becomes whether an Article V convention could become a "runaway convention" that attempts to exceed its scope. If a convention did attempt to exceed its scope, none of the amendments it proposed would become part of the constitution until three-fourths of the states ratified them, which is more states than are required to call a convention in the first place.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|pp=1010–20}} Some proponents of a convention express doubt that an Article V convention would exceed its scope, in light of the United States' experience with 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.<ref>Shearer, Augustus. ''{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20090106015019/http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/StateConstitutionalConventions.pdf A List of Official Publications of American State Constitutional Conventions, 1776–1916]}}'' (1917).</ref> This is reinforced by the fact that prior to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, there were many other conventions of the states (some called by Congress, but most called by the states themselves) where the delegates operated within the scope of their commissions.<ref>Natelson, ''Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s 'Convention for Proposing Amendments,'' 65 Fla. L. Rev. 615 (2013).</ref>

Further, at many Conventions, States have directly controlled their delegates. In the New Hampshire Convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution, delegates were sent with instructions to vote against the Constitution: when they were convinced that the voters had been mistaken, the delegates later returned to their constituents to convince them and request new instructions, allowing the convention to represent the true voice of the people.

Similarly, in the 1787 Convention, problems arose after two of New York's delegates walked out in protest, as the New York State Legislature had created a rule that required two delegates to agree to cast a vote on behalf of the state. As the legislature opted not to send new delegates, Alexander Hamilton accepted the authority of the state and was unable to cast a vote for the remainder of the convention. This is the fundamental difference between a Delegate to a Convention, there to do the bidding of their constituents, and a Representative to a Legislature, there to stand in place of their constituents and make decisions based on their own deliberation.

The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention did disregard Congress's recommendation to "solely amend the Articles"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://conventionofstates.com/files/can-we-trust-the-constitution-answering-the-runaway-convention-myth-3|title=Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the "Runaway Convention" Myth|first=Michael |last=Farris|website=conventionofstates.com}}</ref> but as Madison noted in [[Federalist No. 40]], the resolution Congress passed in February 1787 endorsing the convention was only a recommendation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed40.asp|title=The Avalon Project : Federalist No 40|website=avalon.law.yale.edu}}</ref> Regardless, the delegates sent nothing to the States at all, sending their new Constitution to Congress, as was their mandate. Congress debated the matter before voting to send it on to the States for ratification with no recommendation for or against.

==Ability of states to rescind applications to Congress==
The legislatures of some states have adopted [[list of rescissions of Article V Convention applications|rescissions of their prior applications]]. It is not clear from the language of Article V whether a subsequent vote to rescind an application is permissible. As discussed above, however, if the purpose of Article V is to give state legislatures power over a recalcitrant Congress—and if state lawmakers may indeed limit their applications by specific subject matter—it is possible that federal courts would hold that rescissions of previous applications are likewise valid, in order to give more meaningful effect to the power which Article V confers upon state legislators.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|pp=1014–20}}

If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may ''not'' rescind a prior application, then Ohio's 2013 application for a balanced budget amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan's 2014 application would be the 34th (out of the necessary 34) on that topic, rather than the 20th and 22nd, respectively.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44435.pdf |title=The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments |first=Thomas H. |last=Neale |date=November 15, 2017 |work=[[Congressional Research Service]]}}</ref> The balanced budget amendment applications by Ohio and Michigan were new, first-time convention applications, whereas the renewed applications from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Utah simply reprised applications made by those states during the 1970s but which had been rescinded during the period between 1988 and 2010.

Those{{who|date=April 2018}} claiming that rescission is impossible often also argue that different topics can be combined during a convention's deliberations. Congress has more than enough applications on a single issue to call a convention&mdash;if rescission is not valid&mdash;and more than enough applications on multiple topics regardless of rescissions. Consequently, if a State believes that combining topics could be done by Congress, even if a State feels that doing so would be contrary to the intent of the Constitution, then that State would also have to conclude that Congress can ignore rescission.

Since 2016, 10 state legislatures (Delaware in 2016; New Mexico, Maryland, Nevada and Texas all in 2017; South Dakota in 2019; Colorado and New Jersey in 2021, Illinois in 2022, and Oregon in 2023) have rescinded previous applications to call for such a convention.

==Supreme Court interpretations of Article V==
While the Supreme Court has never definitively interpreted the meaning of Article V, it has, on four occasions, referred to the Article V convention process:

''Dodge v. Woolsey'', 59 U.S. 331 (1855): "[The people] have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the Congress&nbsp;...; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified&nbsp;..."

''[[Hawke v. Smith]]'', {{ussc|253|221|1920}}: {{nowrap|"[Article}} V] makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. The proposed change can only become effective by the ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in a like number of states. The method of ratification is left to the choice of Congress."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/253/221.html|title=Hawke v. Smith, (1920)|access-date=November 14, 2015}}</ref>

''[[Dillon v. Gloss]]'' {{ussc|256|368|1921}}: In a ruling upholding Congress's authority to place a deadline on a particular Constitutional amendment's ratification, the Court reaffirmed that "A further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is that, on the application of two-thirds of the states, Congress shall call a convention for the purpose."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=256&page=368|title=Dillon v. Gloss |year=1921|access-date=November 14, 2015}}</ref>

''United States v. Sprague'', 282 U.S. 716 (1931): "[A]rticle 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. ... It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them."

Because of the [[political question]] doctrine and the Court's ruling in the 1939 case of ''[[Coleman v. Miller]]'' (307 U.S. 433), it remains an open question whether federal courts could assert jurisdiction over a legal challenge to Congress, if Congress were to refuse to call a convention.

==Attempts to call an Article V convention==
{{See also|List of state applications for an Article V Convention}}
[[File:Lawrence Lessig freesouls.jpg|thumb|right|[[Harvard Law School]] professor [[Lawrence Lessig]] has called for a [[Second Constitutional Convention of the United States]].<ref name=howto>{{cite news
|author= Lawrence Lessig
|title= How to Get Our Democracy Back
|publisher= CBS News, The Nation
|quote= Part of the economy of influence that corrupts our government today is that Capitol Hill has become, as Representative Jim Cooper put it, a "farm league for K Street."
|date= February 8, 2010
|url= https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-get-our-democracy-back/
|access-date= December 14, 2011
}}</ref>]]
Every state except [[Hawaii]] has applied for an Article V Convention at one time or another. The majority of such applications were made in the 20th century. Before any official count had been taken, one private count puts the total number of applications at over 700.{{efn|The listing, prepared by the Friends of the Article V Convention, a group that believes that Congress has purposefully ignored its mandate to call such a convention, included, as of March 20, 2010, 39 entries where the state legislature rescinded one or more earlier applications.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022171848/http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm |url-status=usurped |archive-date=October 22, 2008 |title=Images of Article V Applications |access-date=March 22, 2010}}</ref>}}

Even though the Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on some occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. [[United States Bill of Rights|The Bill of Rights]], which includes the first ten amendments, as well as the [[Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-seventh Amendment]], were proposed in part because of a Convention application by the New York and Virginia legislatures at the suggestion of a letter from the New York State Convention to ratify the Constitution. The convention would have been limited to those changes discussed at the various State ratifying Conventions. At least four other amendments (the [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Seventeenth]], [[Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-First]], [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-Second]], and [[Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-Fifth]] Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention, bringing the total to 15 out of 27, a majority of the Amendments.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|p=1008}}

===Direct election of Senators===
In the late 1890s, the House of Representatives passed multiple resolutions for a constitutional amendment providing for direct election of senators. The Senate refused to consider those resolutions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/17th-amendment |title=17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators |access-date=December 23, 2016 |date=2016-08-15}}</ref> In 1893, Nebraska filed the first Article V application for direct election of senators. By 1911, 29 states had Article V convention applications on file for an amendment providing for direct election of senators,<ref>{{cite web |title=Article V Convention Application Analysis |website=The Article V Library |url=http://article5library.com/analyze.php?topic=Direct+election+of+Senators&res=1&gen=0&ylimit=0 |access-date=December 23, 2016}}</ref> just two short of the 31-state threshold.{{efn|There were only 46 states prior to admission of Arizona and New Mexico in 1912.}} As new states were being added the threshold increased, however those States had already passed resolutions supporting such a Convention. The final count is somewhat uncertain, but when either just one or two further states were required, the Senate finally conceded and passed its version of an amendment in May 1911, which was then approved by the House in 1912 and submitted to the states.

===World federal government===
In 1949, six states — California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New Jersey, and North Carolina — applied for a convention to propose an amendment "to enable the participation of the United States in a world federal government."<ref name="The Article V Library">{{cite web | title=Article V Convention Application Analysis — World Federal Government | website=The Article V Library | url=http://article5library.org/analyze.php?topic=World+federal+government&res=1&gen=0&ylimit=0 | access-date=June 1, 2022}}</ref> Multiple other state legislatures introduced or debated the same proposal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davenport |first1=John |date=1949 |title=The Approach to World Government Through the Technique of the World Constitutional Convention: American Experience  |url=https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4293&context=umlr |journal=University of Miami Law Review |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=528–530 |access-date=June 1, 2022}}</ref> These resolutions were part of an effort at the time to integrate the United States into a potential world government.<ref>Davenport, 500–503.</ref>

===Congressional apportionment===
There have been two nearly successful attempts to amend the Constitution via an Article V Convention since the late 1960s. The first try was an attempt to propose an amendment that would overturn two Supreme Court decisions, ''[[Wesberry v. Sanders]]'' and ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'', decisions that required states to adhere to the [[one man, one vote]] principle in drawing electoral districts for state and federal elections. The attempt fell only one state short of reaching the 34 needed to force Congress to call a convention in 1969, but ended by the death of its main promoter Senator [[Everett Dirksen]]. After this peak, several states (whose legislatures by this point had been re-engineered in the wake of the rulings) rescinded their applications, and interest in the proposed amendment subsided.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|p=1009}}

===Balanced budget===
In response to increasing federal deficits, a movement in the 1970s by the states to impose fiscal discipline on the federal government began. Between 1975 and 1979, thirty states petitioned Congress for a convention to write a [[balanced budget amendment]].<ref name="Morgan">{{cite journal |last1=MORGAN |first1=IWAN |title=Unconventional Politics: The Campaign for a Balanced Budget Amendment Constitutional Convention in the 1970 |journal=Journal of American Studies |date=December 1998 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=421–445 |jstor=27556477 |doi=10.1017/S0021875898006008 |s2cid=143794657 }}</ref> By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states short of the 34 needed to force such a convention.{{sfn|Rogers|2007|p=1010}}   In addition, at least four states (California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Montana) had adopted resolutions requesting that Congress propose a deficit spending amendment.<ref name=CRS/> California and Montana were set to hold ballot initiatives that would have forced their legislatures to file convention applications, but state courts ruled the two ballot initiatives unconstitutional, and the effort stalled.<ref name=Economist>{{cite news |title=America might see a new constitutional convention in a few years |url=https://www.economist.com/briefing/2017/09/30/america-might-see-a-new-constitutional-convention-in-a-few-years |newspaper=The Economist |date=September 30, 2017}}</ref> Enthusiasm for the amendment subsided in response to fears that an Article V Convention could not be limited to a single subject<ref name="CRS" /> and because Congress passed the [[Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act]] in 1985<ref Name=CRS>{{cite book |author1=James V. Saturno |author2=Megan Suzanne Lynch |title=A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options |date=January 8, 2018 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=23–26 |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41907.pdf}}</ref> (the act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986{{sfn|Rogers|2007|p=1010}} but Congress enacted a reworked version of the law in 1987<ref>{{cite web |title=H.J.RES.324 All Congressional Actions |url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:HJ00324:@@@X |website=THOMAS |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=December 17, 2010 |date=1987-09-29 }}{{Dead link|date=August 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>). By 1988, two states (Alabama and Florida) had rescinded their applications on the topic of a federal balanced budget amendment.<ref name="CRS" /> Similar rescissions were approved in Louisiana (1990), Oregon (1999), Idaho (2000), Utah, (2001), North Dakota (2001) Wyoming (2001), Arizona (2003) and Georgia (2004).<ref name="CRS" />

Recently the movement has seen a revival. On November 20, 2013, the [[Ohio General Assembly]] applied to Congress for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. This effort made Ohio the 21st state to join a push for a national convention of states.<ref>{{cite news|last=Pelzer|first=Jeremy|title=Ohio lawmakers join in push for national convention on balanced-budget amendment|url=http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/11/ohio_lawmakers_join_in_push_fo.html|access-date=21 January 2014|newspaper=Cleveland Plain Dealer|date=2013-11-22}}</ref> On March 26, 2014, the [[Michigan Legislature]] applied to Congress for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment, making Michigan the 22nd to participate in the national effort.<ref>{{cite news|last=Oosting|first=Jonathan|title=Michigan petitions Congress for federal balanced budget amendment, constitutional convention|url=http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/03/michigan_petitions_congress_fo.html|access-date=31 March 2014|newspaper=MLive|date=2014-03-26}}</ref> On April 27, 2016, the Oklahoma Senate approved an Article V convention on a balanced budget amendment, making Oklahoma the 29th state to participate in the national effort.<ref>{{cite news|last=Arnett|first=David|title=Oklahoma Senate approved Article V Convention | url=http://www.tulsatoday.com/2016/04/27/oklahoma-senate-approved-article-v-convention/ | newspaper=Tulsa Today | date=2016-04-27 | access-date=2016-07-01}}</ref> On November 7, 2017, the Wisconsin Legislature approved an Article V convention resolution for a balanced budget amendment.

===Campaign finance===
A [[political action committee]] called [[Wolf-PAC]] emerged from New York's [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement in October 2011. Wolf-PAC calls for a convention of states in order to propose a constitutional amendment that addresses the issue of campaign finance. The resolution reads ''"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."''<ref>The Rapidian, Catalyst Radio on Friday Sep 20th, 2013 11:30am with Linda Gellasch and WYCE Radio 88.1 FM, [http://therapidian.org/catalyst-radio-wolf-pac-starting-local-efforts-get-money-out-politics Catalyst Radio: Wolf-PAC starting with local efforts to get money out of politics], Accessed Jan. 15, 2014</ref><ref>Katerina Nikolas, Nov 9, 2011 in World, Digital Journal, [http://digitaljournal.com/article/314120 Wolf-PAC.com: Proposal to prevent corporations buying politicians], Accessed Jan. 15, 2014, "...In October, Cenk Uygur, ... announced the launch of Wolf-PAC during Occupy Wall Street protests. Wolf-PAC is a political action committee with a mission to pass the 28th Amendment to prevent corporations buying politicians..."</ref>

{{As of|2022}}, Wolf-PAC's application had been adopted in three states: California and Vermont in 2014; and Rhode Island in 2016. New Jersey and Illinois previously adopted the application in 2014, but rescinded it in 2021 and 2022, respectively.<ref>{{Cite web|title=New Jersey SCR161 {{!}} 2020-2021 {{!}} Regular Session|url=https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/SCR161/2020|access-date=2022-02-17|website=LegiScan|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Full Text of SJR0054 | website=Illinois General Assembly | url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=110&GA=102&DocTypeId=SJR&DocNum=54&GAID=16&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session= | access-date=August 23, 2022}}</ref>

===Convention of States Project===
[[File:Convention of States map.svg|thumb|350px|Convention of States map<ref>{{cite web | url=https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application | title=Progress Map: States that have passed the Convention of States Article V application }}</ref>
{{legend|#1EB100|(19) Passed Convention of States Resolution}}
{{legend|#F9E231|(6) Passed One Chamber}}
{{legend|#0376BB|(15) Active Legislation}}
{{legend|#D0D0D0|(10) No Action}}
]]
The [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] group [[Citizens for Self-Governance]] (CSG) is engaged in an ongoing effort to call an Article V Convention. Through its "Convention of States Project", CSG is seeking "to urge and empower state legislators to call a convention of states." CSG states that it initiated the Convention of States project "for the purpose of stopping the runaway power of the federal government."<ref>{{cite web|title=Welcome|url=http://conventionofstates.com/welcome|work=Convention of States|publisher=Citizens for Self-Governance}}</ref><ref name=slate>{{cite news|last=Roller|first=Emma|title=Conservatives' Improbable New 'Convention of States' Project|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/12/04/alec_ron_johnson_support_convention_of_states.html|access-date=21 January 2014|newspaper=Slate|date=December 4, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Benko|first=Ralph|title=Mark Levin's Game Changer: Using The Constitution To Arrest Federal Drift|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/08/19/mark-levins-game-changer-using-the-constitution-to-arrest-federal-drift/|access-date=21 January 2014|newspaper=Forbes|date=2013-08-19}}</ref><ref name=weigel>{{cite news|last=Weigel|first=David|title=Inside the Secret Conservative Campaign to Rewrite the Constitution|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/12/chris_kapenga_mark_levin_and_article_v_the_secret_campaign_to_pass_conservative.html|access-date=21 January 2014|newspaper=Slate|date=December 10, 2013|author2=Roller, Emma}}</ref> [[Mark Levin]] has supported CSG's efforts to a call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the constitution.<ref name=weigel/>

In December 2013, nearly 100 legislators from 32 states met at [[Mount Vernon]] to talk about how to call a convention of states. According to ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'', "The meeting lasted four hours, ending when legislators agreed to meet again in the spring of 2014. That’s the most progress anyone’s made in decades toward a states-first constitutional amendment campaign."<ref name=weigel/>

In February 2014, U.S. Senator [[Tom Coburn]] announced that after his retirement from Congress, he would focus on promoting the Convention of States to state legislatures.<ref>{{cite news|last=Weigel|first=David|title=Georgia, Tom Coburn Call for Constitutional Convention|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/02/06/tea_party_georgia_tom_coburn_call_for_constitutional_convention.html|access-date=26 February 2014|newspaper=Slate|date=February 6, 2014}}</ref> In December 2015, [[Marco Rubio]] endorsed CSG's efforts to a call an Article V Convention.<ref name=weigel/><ref>{{cite news|last1=Sherfinski|first1=David|title=Rubio backs call for constitutional convention to balance budget, impose term limits|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/marco-rubio-voices-support-amend-constitution/|access-date=4 January 2016|newspaper=Washington Times|date=December 30, 2015}}</ref> In January 2016, Texas Governor [[Greg Abbott]] called for a Convention of States to restrict the power of the federal government. In June 2017, former U.S. Senator and former [[The Heritage Foundation|Heritage Foundation]] president [[Jim DeMint]] announced his role as a senior adviser for the Convention of States project.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Schouten|first1=Fredreka|title=In latest job, Jim DeMint wants to give Tea Party 'a new mission'|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/12/jim-demint-joins-group-that-wants-to-amend-constitution-tea-party/102748540/|website=USA Today|access-date=7 July 2017}}</ref>

In September 2016, CSG held a simulated convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution in [[Williamsburg, Virginia]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Harris|first1=Andrew|title=Tea Party co-founder holds convention in Williamsburg for amending Constitution|url=http://wydaily.com/2016/09/23/tea-party-co-founder-holds-constitutional-convention-in-williamsburg/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160924164055/http://wydaily.com/2016/09/23/tea-party-co-founder-holds-constitutional-convention-in-williamsburg/|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 24, 2016|access-date=4 October 2016|publisher=Williamsburg Yorktown Daily|date=September 23, 2016}}</ref> An assembly of 137 delegates representing every state gathered to conduct a simulated convention.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Tinsley|first1=Anna|title=Is Texas ready to join a movement to rewrite history?|url=http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article105214191.html|access-date=4 October 2016|newspaper=Star-Telegram|date=September 30, 2016}}</ref> The simulated convention passed amendments relating to six topics, including requiring the states to approve any increase in the [[National debt of the United States|national debt]], imposing [[Term limits in the United States|term limits]], restricting the scope of the [[Commerce Clause]], limiting the power of federal regulations, requiring a [[supermajority]] to impose federal taxes and repealing the [[Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|16th Amendment]], and giving the states the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Farris|first1=Michael|last2=Ellis|first2=Jenna|title=A Convention of the States to Amend the Constitution|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440506/constitutional-amendments-states-convention|access-date=4 October 2016|magazine=National Review|date=September 29, 2016}}</ref> In August 2023, CSG held a simulated Article V convention in Williamsburg.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-31 |title=Some Illinois lawmakers want to see U.S. call a constitutional amendments convention |url=https://www.wsiu.org/state-of-illinois/2023-07-31/some-illinois-lawmakers-want-to-see-u-s-call-a-constitutional-amendments-convention |access-date=2023-12-06 |website=WSIU |language=en}}</ref>

{{As of|2024}}, CSG's application for a Convention of States has been passed in 19 states.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Patriot |first1=Article V |title=17th state passes resolution for a COS |url=https://conventionofstates.com/news/breaking-nebraska-becomes-17th-state-to-pass-the-convention-of-states-resolution |website=Convention Of States |publisher=COS Action}}</ref> 34 states are required for a convention to be called.

===Single Subject Amendment PAC===
A [[political action committee|Super PAC]] called Single Subject Amendment registered with the [[Federal Election Commission]] on March 1, 2013. It is actively engaged in an effort to call an Article V Convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to provide every law enacted by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be clearly expressed in the bill's title.<ref name=article>{{cite web| url=http://articlevcaucus.com/uncategorized/july-newsletter/| title=July Newsletter| publisher=Article V News| access-date=11 February 2015}}</ref><ref name=ufdc>{{cite web| url=http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00019283/00029| title=Cusp of history: Pasco leads way to amend Constitution| author=Michael Hinman| date=15 January 2015| publisher=The Laker| access-date=11 February 2015}}</ref><ref name=laker>{{cite web| url=http://lakerlutznews.com/lln/?p=18440| title=Florida first state to demand a single-subject Constitutional convention| author=Michael Hinman| date=1 May 2014| publisher=The Laker/Lutz News| access-date=11 February 2015}}</ref> Forty-one state constitutions have a [[single-subject rule|single subject]] provision but this provision is not in the United States Constitution. In April 2014, Florida became the first state to make an application for an Article V Convention to constitutionally prohibit [[rider (legislation)|unrelated riders]] in Congress.<ref name=florida>{{cite web| url=http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=51377| title=CS/HM 261 - Constitutional Convention/Single-Subject Requirement for Federal Legislation| publisher=Florida House of Representatives| access-date=11 February 2015}}</ref><ref name=govtrack>{{cite web| url=https://www.govtrack.us/states/fl/bills/cc613f6879a8/s0368| title=S0368. Constitutional Convention/Single-Subject Requirement for Federal Legislation| publisher=GovTrack| access-date=11 February 2015}}</ref><ref name=govtrack2>{{cite web| url=https://www.govtrack.us/states/fl/bills/cc613f6879a8/h0261| title=H0261. Constitutional Convention/Single-Subject Requirement for Federal Legislation| publisher=GovTrack| access-date=11 February 2015}}</ref>

===Aggregation strategy===
Some Article V convention proponents have proposed aggregating unrelated applications, including aggregating plenary convention and balanced budget applications, to reach the 34-state threshold necessary to call a convention.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Biesecker | first1=Michael | title=Budget hawks hatch plan to force constitutional convention | url=https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-constitutions-scott-walker-politics-business-0079f922a810f82336a64b4ac6a3a214 | date=July 31, 2020 | work=[[Associated Press]] | access-date=February 23, 2022 | quote=The new plan, presented during the ALEC workshop with a PowerPoint presentation from conservative activist David Biddulph, is to take the 28 state resolutions seeking a balanced budget amendment and combine them with six state resolutions passed over the last two centuries generally seeking a constitutional convention. The oldest of those was a resolution passed by New York in 1789, according to a 2018 article on the conservative Federalist Society’s website by constitutional scholar Robert G. Natelson. … Biddulph proposed recruiting state attorneys general to file a legal order demanding that Congress recognize the 34 state resolutions and convene a constitutional convention. If Congress refuses, the AGs would sue in federal court.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Natelson |first1=Robert G. |date=2018 |title=Counting to Two Thirds: How Close Are We to a Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution? |url=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/counting-to-two-thirds-how-close-are-we-to-a-convention-for-proposing-amendments-to-the-constitution |journal=[[Federalist Society|The Federalist Society Review]] |volume=19 |issue=50 |pages=50–60 |access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last1=Gardiner | first1=Paul | title=A Convention Strategy | url=https://huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/ | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200226231515/https://huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/ | url-status=dead | archive-date=2020-02-26 | date=February 13, 2020 | work=Hunt For Liberty | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref> In 2021–2022, resolutions advocating for such an approach were introduced in Georgia,<ref>{{cite web | title=Senate Resolution 29 | url=https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/198307 | work=[[Georgia General Assembly]] | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref> Mississippi,<ref>{{cite web | title=House Concurrent Resolution No. 58 | url=http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2021/pdf/HC/HC0058IN.pdf | work=[[Mississippi Legislature]] | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref> South Carolina,<ref>{{cite web | title=S. 1006 | url=https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/1006.htm | work=[[South Carolina General Assembly]] | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref> and Utah.<ref>{{cite web | title=H.J.R. 9 | url=https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/hbillint/HJR009.pdf | work=[[Utah State Legislature]] | access-date=February 23, 2022}}</ref>  Additionally, legislation was introduced in the [[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]] to convene a convention by aggregating state applications.<ref>{{cite web | first1=Fred | last1=Lucas | title=House measure says Congress obligated to call convention for fiscal responsibility amendment | website=Fox News | date=July 19, 2022 | url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-measure-congress-obligation-call-convention-balance-budget-amendment | access-date=August 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title= H.Con.Res.101 | 
website=Congress.gov
 | url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/101 | access-date=August 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=H.R.8419 | 
website=Congress.gov
 | url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8419 | access-date=August 23, 2022}}</ref>

An alternative proposal is to amend the constitution to allow the states to ratify amendments asynchronously, of their own initiative.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://apps.bostonglobe.com/ideas/graphics/2021/12/editing-the-constitution/let-states-get-the-ball-rolling-on-amendments |title=Let states get the ball rolling on amendments |date=December 15, 2021 |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |author=Stephen E. Sachs}}</ref>

According to Common Cause,<ref>{{cite web | title=Article V Campaign | date=March 11, 2024 | url=https://www.commoncause.org/work/article-v-campaign/ | access-date=February 9, 2025}}</ref> 28 states have called for a convention in aggregate, which means that only six additional states would trigger a convention.

=== Gun control ===
On June 8, 2023, [[Gavin Newsom]] proposed a 28th amendment to the constitution to address gun control, specifically by raising the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21, instituting universal background checks for firearm purchases, requiring mandatory waiting periods, and banning assault weapons. He proposed having an Article V convention to address this amendment.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gans |first=Jared |date=2023-06-08 |title=Newsom proposes constitutional amendment to restrict access to guns |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4040200-california-governor-proposes-constitutional-amendment-to-restrict-access-to-guns/ |access-date=2023-06-08 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> In September, the [[California State Legislature]] formally applied for an Article V convention proposing such an amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=SJR-7 Federal constitutional convention: firearms. | website=California Legislative Information | url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SJR7 | access-date=February 28, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last=Luna | first=Taryn | title=California lawmakers pass Newsom's call for U.S. constitutional convention on gun control | website=Los Angeles Times | date=September 15, 2023 | url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-14/lawmakers-pass-newsoms-call-for-u-s-constitutional-convention-on-gun-control | access-date=February 28, 2024}}</ref>

=== Term limits ===
Since 2016, [[U.S. Term Limits]] has called for an Article V Convention with the limited purpose of imposing term limits on [[United States Congress|Congress]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.termlimits.com/ |website=US Term Limits |access-date=16 April 2024|title=Term Limit Congress - U.S. Term Limits}}</ref> Resolutions calling for such a convention have been passed by the state legislatures of Florida,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=55338|title=Florida House of Representatives - HM 417 - Article V Convention for Congressional Term Limits|website=www.myfloridahouse.gov|access-date=2016-04-01}}</ref> Alabama,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2018RS/PrintFiles/HJR23-enr.pdf|title=Alabama Legislature Passes Term Limits on Congress Convention Resolution|last=|first=|date=|website=ALISON |access-date=2018-01-25}}</ref> Missouri,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.senate.mo.gov/18info/BTS_Web/Actions.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=73322738|title=Missouri General Assembly Passes Term Limits on Congress Convention Resolution|website=www.senate.mo.gov|access-date=2018-05-17}}</ref> West Virginia,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hcr22%20intr.htm&yr=2020&sesstype=RS&i=22&houseorig=H&billtype=CR|title=West Virginia Legislature Passes Term Limits on Congress Convention Resolution|website=WV Legislature |access-date=2020-01-21}}</ref> Wisconsin,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/enrolled/sjr102|title=Wisconsin State Legislature Passes SJR 102 - Article V Convention for Congressional Term Limits|website=Wisconsin Legislature |access-date=2022-02-28}}</ref> Oklahoma,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hjr1032&Session=2300|title=Oklahoma State Legislature Passes HJR 1032 - Article V Convention for Congressional Term Limits|website=Oklahoma State Legislature |access-date=2023-04-20}}</ref> and Tennessee.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0005|website = Tennessee State Legislature| access-date=2024-04-13 | title=Tennessee General Assembly Legislation }}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Constituent assembly#United States|Constituent assembly]]
* [[Democratic backsliding in the United States]]
* [[Federal Convention (disambiguation)]]
* [[Intergovernmental Conference]]
* [[List of state applications for an Article V Convention]]
* [[Second Constitutional Convention of the United States]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Bibliography==
*{{cite journal |title=A General Theory of Article V: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment |last=Paulsen |first=Michael |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |year=1993|volume=103|issue=3 |pages=677–789 |jstor=797083|doi=10.2307/797083 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7530&context=ylj }}
*{{cite journal |title=How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention |last=Paulsen |first=Michael |journal=[[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy]]|year=2011|volume=34|page=837|ssrn=1856719}}
*{{cite journal |title=The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process |last=Rogers |first=James |journal=[[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy]] |year=2007|volume=30|page=1005|url=http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf}}

==Further reading==
*Klein, Philip. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20101013185203/http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/12/is-it-time-for-a-convention Is it Time for a Convention?"], ''American Spectator'' (October 2010).
<!---The following links to work by Natelson fall under Wikipedia policy (WP:Blogs) which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."-->
*Natelson, Robert. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/07/how-past-american-conventions-inspired-the-constitutions-convention-for-proposing-amendments/ "How past american conventions inspired the constitution's convention for proposing amendments"], [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (December 7, 2015).
*Natelson, Robert. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/how-the-founders-inserted-the-amendments-convention-into-the-constitution/ "How the founders inserted the amendments convention into the constitution"], [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (December 8, 2015).
*Natelson, Robert. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/09/how-the-states-have-used-conventions-and-the-amendment-process-to-promote-reform/ "How the states have used conventions and the amendment process to promote reform"], [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (December 9, 2015).
*Natelson, Robert. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/10/how-the-judiciarys-decisions-shed-light-on-the-federal-amendments-convention/ "How the judiciary's decisions shed light on the federal amendments convention"], [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (December 10, 2015).
*Natelson, Robert. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/11/how-the-convention-for-proposing-amendments-became-the-subject-of-popular-mythology/ "How the convention for proposing amendments became the subject of popular mythology"], [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (December 11, 2015).
*Natelson, Robert. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/11/how-the-procedures-for-a-modern-amendments-convention-may-unfold/ "How the procedures for a modern amendments convention may unfold"], [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (December 11, 2015).

==External links==
*[https://www.conventionofstates.com The Convention of States Project] (Citizens for Self-Governance website)

{{US Constitution}}

[[Category:United States constitutional law]]
[[Category:Article Five of the United States Constitution]]