Replies

In previous conventions, the delegates determined the parliamentary rules.

Previous conventions? What are you talking about? There has only ever been ONE constitutional convention, and it was not called under our current constitution.

There is no precedence for congressional control

True enough regarding an actual constitutional convention, but you were speaking of Article 5 conventions. There are no precedents whatsoever for Article 5 conventions, because congress has never called an Article 5 convention.

However, regarding congress' authority to run/control such a convention, one can turn to the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: [The Congress shall have power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article 5 gives congress the power (and responsibility), under certain conditions, to call a convention for purposes of amending the constitution.

I'm pretty sure Article 1, Section 8, empowers them to set the rules for carrying such a convention to execution.

The whole point Of Article V was well understood at the time of the Philadelphia convention and it was to provide the states a method of protecting themselves from the power of an overweening Congress. To accept your interpretation of the elastic clause in article 1 section 8 is to read the Constitution in a way that is internally repugnant. That is faulty construction-but probably not necessarily bad prognostication of the way the Supreme Court acts today.

However, there is nothing to say the Supreme Court should decide this matter. Who would decide the matter? These are all open questions for which there is some guidance from history but it is an area of constitutional law where the wise would be wary of categorical assertions.

Previous conventions?

There were half a dozen or so before the 1787 convention. Conventions of states/colonies were nothing new.

The threat to an Article V amendment convention would emerge from a congressional attempt to appease the states. Our first ten amendments were proposed by congress in order to head off an Article V convention lead by anti-federalists still smarting from their loss.

Your necessary and proper clause use is creative, but not applicable to controlling a convention.

Uh, congress SHALL call a convention when two thirds of the states apply.

There is no Article I Section 8 power to control a convention.

Nothing in the record of the constitutional convention or state ratifying conventions supports your premises.

Article I Section 8 "necessary and proper" refers to the above powers granted to Congress.

An Article V convention to propose amendments is for the States. Amendment 10 grants to the states all powers not delegated to the United States.

It seems to me that the power to control an Article V conventions falls to the states via the 10th amendment, since it is a convention of the states, by the states, and for the states.

-PJ