Replies

Are you saying that the founding fathers made a mistake by putting Article V in there? It is what it sounds like to me.

No, they did not make a mistake putting Article V in there. But it may also be a mistake invoking Article V without a compelling national crisis forcing it.

It is all well and good to claim to limit the scope of an Article V convention to only specific subjects, but there is nothing in the constitution that provides for such limitations. At best it would come down to a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

There is also nothing in the Constitution that would prevent Congress from setting up the specific rules and procedures of an Article V convention such as who would chair such a convention, how amendment proposals are presented to the convention body, whether the convention body must vote on each proposed amendment before it is formally adopted and presented to the states for ratification, etc.

There just might be a reason why Article V has never been invoked in the 234 years since the ratification of the Constitution. That reason is that there is enough uncertainty in the process to keep 2/3 of the states from petitioning for one.

But it may also be a mistake invoking Article V without a compelling national crisis forcing it.

Would you be kind enough to refer me to the section in the FEDERALIST ("federalist papers") where Madison implies that this article is for a "national crisis" and not to be utilized on a routine basis by states who wish their legislative agenda promoted? I will await your answer

It is all well and good to claim to limit the scope of an Article V convention to only specific subjects, but there is nothing in the constitution that provides for such limitations.

Actually there is. One, there is the principle of common law, which is brought in wholesale into the body of US law. This would make the convention of states subject to the RULES OF THE CONVENTION OF STATES which had recently (32 times) been invoked. In those conventions, in every one of them, there was nothing governing the delegates save the specified instructions to the delegates. It is stated that a convention of states would specify the instructions to their delegates.

At best it would come down to a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Not true. In fact, Congress recognizes its own legal impotence in this issue and has proposed no less than 41 pieces of legislation attempting to usurp any rule making ability over a Convention of States. All have been defeated, but EVEN IF THEY SUCCEEDED, the USSC has already ruled on this issue. Smith v Union Bank (1861) states SPECIFICALLY says that the rules for a convention of states would be under the control of the states and NOT under any federal control whatsoever (possibly one reason these proposed laws were defeated? I don't know). There is also nothing in the Constitution that would prevent Congress from setting up the specific rules and procedures of an Article V convention such as who would chair such a convention, how amendment proposals are presented to the convention body, whether the convention body must vote on each proposed amendment before it is formally adopted and presented to the states for ratification, etc.

False. See Above.