Replies

I have a question for the constitutional lawyers here.(of which i am not in the legal profession)

If there is a need to amend or create a new amendment to the Constitution, and a Constitutional Convention is called, can other articles and amendments be tinkered with in that same Convention? or do they have to state the purpose of the Convention prior to the vote for a Convention and strictly stick to the purpose?

As Congressman Billybob explained it to me, the Convention is the agent of the states, and the states define the purview of the Convention by the language of their petitions to Congress requesting that Congress call that Convention. According to the Principle of Agency, an agent cannot go outside the purview of his agency agreement, so any attempt to turn the Convention onto subjects outside its purview, as defined by the states, would be out of order and forbidden.

At present 32 states have petitions in Congress asking for a Convention to address a balanced budget amendment. Should 2 more states send petitions to Congress for a Convention to address a balanced budget amendment, Congress would be required to set a time and place for a Convention to address a balanced budget amendment only. Phyllis Schlafly, Bob Unruh, and other writers who have been trying to whip up hysteria about a possible Runaway Convention have not studied the issue.

If you want a Convention open to address all possible subjects, you need to get 34 states to petition for one. (There are 2 petitions for a General Convention that have been out there since the 1790's, but their "freshness" is subject to debate in Congress and the courts.)

If there is a need to amend or create a new amendment to the Constitution, and a Constitutional Convention is called, can other articles and amendments be tinkered with in that same Convention? or do they have to state the purpose of the Convention prior to the vote for a Convention and strictly stick to the purpose?

Short answer: since it has never happened, no one knows.

There is one theory that it depends on the applications by the states. If 2/3rds of the states call for a Convention to propose an Amendment that human life starts at conception, say, the convention will be restricted to that and that an amendment proposing to repeal the Second Amendment would be out of bounds. Only if the state applications were open-ended would the Convention have the right to propose anything it wants.

There is the alternative theory that once the Convention meets, everything is on the table right from the start, baby. No matter what the states originally said.

Remember in either case any proposed amendment(s) must still be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. So don't imagine a hypothetical Constitutional Convention as a quick, easy end run around the will of the people.