[katana]

If one reads about the last constitutional convention in 1787 one thing that's clear is the result may be quite different than anyone can anticipate. Fortunately (providentially), the Virginia delegation went in with a definite plan that formed a foundation for a viable national government. But even their program was substantially altered and improved through long drawn out discussion and a difficult series of tough compromises.

When someone brings up the idea of invoking Article V I always wonder what they hope or expect would come out of a convention that would be superior to the finely balanced original? And why do they believe the political class would obey a new constitution any better than one which has tradition, sanctity, and 225 years of proven durability and flexibility behind it?

[Jacquerie]

#6 answers one of your questions.

As I implied in my post, the Framers didn't write Article V to render proposing amendments terribly difficult. However, ratification of amendments is an incredibly high hurdle and a terrific safeguard.

[C210N]

about the last constitutional convention in 1787...

Does your entire post refer to constitutional conventions?

If so, note that this is the first and only reply here that does. All the others refer to an Article V Amendments convention.

I'd be fearful of a new Constitutional Convention, as you outline. But, I welcome with open arms an Amendments Convention.

[Publius]

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[Jabba the Nutt]

It's the last peaceful chance for the Federal Government. If Article V convention and amendments fail, the Fed's will go full tyranny and States will leave the union. And/or the people will fight.

I hate to sound apocalyptic, but this is what I see.