However, I don't see how you get this from Article V: "The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects."
The specific wording is,"The Congress ... shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments," when requested to do so by 2/3 of the States. Don't see anything in there about limiting the freedom of such a Convention.
Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever.
Somewhat ironic, since that is all (most at least of) the delegates to the 1787 Convention were authorized to do. It is at any rate irrelevant, as sufficiently broad amending equates to a new Constitution in practice.
No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate.
True. However, it's always seemed to me that an amendment could be passed deleting this provision, then one changing Senatorial representation as desired. A moot point, since I believe there is zero support for any such proposition. And it couldn't pass half the states, much less 3/4, anyway.
An Agent may not go outside the bounds of his Agency Agreement, for if he does, his actions become invalid.
Let's say we conclude an Agency Agreement where I, the Agent, will sell the old car belonging to you, the Principal, and get ten percent of the sales price. If this is New England, we'll conclude a written contract and get it notarized. If this is the South, we'll just shake hands.
As long as I, the Agent, stick to our Agency Agreement and sell your car, all is well with the world. But let's say that instead of selling your car, I sell your house.
Is my sale of your house valid? No. You did not authorize me to sell your house.
Could you sue me for breach of contract and civil fraud? Yes.
Could you file charges for criminal fraud against me? That depends on how the statute is written in the state in which we concluded our agreement.
When the states request an Amendments Convention, they specify what they wish the Convention to discuss. This precedent goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation, and it is a basic principle of contract law. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states submit petitions for the same subject, Congress is required to set the time and place for the Amendments Convention and state the purview of the Convention, which is drawn from the petitions from the states. Thus we have the Principals (the states), the Agent (the Amendments Convention) and the Agency Agreement (the language of the Convention call).
The states may also request a general convention in which any amendment proposal may be brought up. This is where people get nervous. But the Convention of the States project is aiming at uniform language for their petitions for two reasons:
The binding principle is basic contract law.
The specific wording is,"The Congress ... shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments," when requested to do so by 2/3 of the States. Don't see anything in there about limiting the freedom of such a Convention.
I understand that amendments made in past Congresses use the National Archives as administrator for the proposal and ratification process. For states to activate their Article V provision, they must 'apply'. This has been done recently on a number of issues but we don't hear it much because most of the amendments have weak support among the states. The Balanced Budget Amendment made news because there was significant support for it.
So we note that states have in the recent past proposed to Congress certain amendments and have lodged their proposed amendments via the National Archives. So Publius says correctly that states can propose specific amendments.
Article V does not say an amendment proposal must accompany an 'application'. It merely says they may require Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. Ostensibly they may call for a general convention for proposing amendments.
So again Publius is correctly pointing out the obvious that states can call for specific amendments as they have in the past or call for a general convention where proposed amendments are worked out under the penumbra of the called Convention.
Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever.
Somewhat ironic, since that is all (most at least of) the delegates to the 1787 Convention were authorized to do. It is at any rate irrelevant, as sufficiently broad amending equates to a new Constitution in practice.
Large portions of the Articles of Confederation (AOC) actually greatly resemble the US Constitution. The historical context was quite different. The Articles were always thought to be a temporary provisional means of governing while the process of making a permanent governing document was in work. And indeed the US Constitution was not suddenly created at a Constitutional Convention. It was discussed, written about and debated for many years prior to the CC.
Article V does not allow for calling a Constitutional Convention, it allows only a Convention for proposing amendments. The AOC had no such restriction. It is possible but unlikely that 3/4s of states could amend to expand Article V to allow for a Constitutional Convention.
No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate.
True. However, it's always seemed to me that an amendment could be passed deleting this provision, then one changing Senatorial representation as desired. A moot point, since I believe there is zero support for any such proposition. And it couldn't pass half the states, much less 3/4, anyway.
Actually Publius is off here. There are three clauses that were off limits to change, not just the two that Publius noted. They are Art. I, Sec. 9 concerning slaves; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, concerning the taxing power of Congress; Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, concerning equal representation of states in the Senate. The first two have timed out and the last may be considered permanent unless the states unanimously adopt to overturn it.