Replies

Your confusing a Convention of the States for amending the US Constitution with a Convention of the States for formulating a new national governing document. The number of States required for ratification of a new national governing document can be set at the Convention.

Article VII of the US Constitution set the number of states required to ratify the US Constitution at 9. A new national governing document could set the number of states for ratification at 9, 26, 34, 38 or 50. It is wide open.

I understand you’re determined to amend the US Constitution so the federal government can explain to us how ignoring certain amendments is necessary for our safety and security. I’m referring to a Convention of the States for a new national governing document where there will be accountability for anyone who ignores any part of the new national governing document.

Let me parse Article V for you.

***

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 apply to 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 unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

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

> “Your confusing a Convention of the States for amending the US Constitution with a Convention of the States for formulating a new national governing document. The number of States required for ratification of a new national governing document can be set at the Convention.”

There is not an iota of confusion.

> “Article VII of the US Constitution set the number of states required to ratify the US Constitution at 9. A new national governing document could set the number of states for ratification at 9, 26, 34, 38 or 50. It is wide open.”

Again, utterly false.

The Convention of States will not be ratifying a US Constitution. It will be proposing amendments to the US Constitution.

There is no constitutional authority for ratifying a “new national governing document”. Any attempt to do so is unconstitutional and would never be recognized as binding to anyone or anything.

The only way a “new national governing document” could be ratified is consequential to a revolution whereby the US Constitution would be overturned and the branches of all government overthrown; NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

All changes to the US Constitution must be by constitutional amendment and require ratification by 3/4’s of the States or 38 States. To change the number of states from 38 to another number requires a constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 States; NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.