but, due to my interest in Constitutional matters, I will briefly try to answer some of them.

With respect to questions 1 & 2, my answers are yes, an Article V Convention is absolutely a good thing. And, yes, the “shall call” language of Article V leaves Congress no option but to call a convention. Furthermore, if congress failed to call the Convention when the requisite states had requested one, the states have the right to convene themselves and whatever amendments were ratified by 3/4ths of the states would be legal.

With respect to concerns about a “runaway convention,” the process itself is so arduous that I am not concerned about the ability to go overboard with amendments.

With respect to question 4, as far as I am concerned, the only people in a position to determine whether or not the topics being considered are germane are the states proposing the amendments. In other words, no topics are out of bounds. I do think requests for conventions spread out over a number of years would not count as the requisite number needed to call a convention. My reading of Article V is that the request must be at any given time, two-thirds of the states must simultaneously make the request for the convention.

To answer question 5, the founding fathers did not make a mistake adding the state based Article V Convention option. As it stands now, we are seeing the results of an out of control federal government and I always remind people that the states created the federal government as “an agent of the states” not the other way around. I do not, however, think that we can “reasonably ignore the provisions of the Constitution where we think the founders made a mistake” as that would undermine the foundation of our constitutional governance. The proper thing to do is to amend it as provided in Article V.

Hope this was helpful, RoguePolitics.

I would like to see any convention TRY to limit itself to proposed Amendments on certain subjects and that many should be to reverse Sup Ct opinions that went awry! And possibly to change the tenure of Judges and Justices, limit their jurisdiction and possibly provide for the overturning of decisions by majority votes in both houses of Congress.

More later

I do think the worry about runaway is overblown given that most states are conservative, eg more than 38 states have state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman. That could be made the Law of the Land for all states via a convention and only a convention because the presence of so many LibDems as senators in Red States prevents such const amendments from getting out of Congress.

1) Poor. It would be a mess dominated by the Barney Franks and Rick Santorums of the world.

2) If 3/4s of the state legislatures are united on something, it’s a pretty good chance that it will lead to something on the federal level. In that respect, I don’t think that it’s relevant whether it’s mandatory for Congress to do something; they probably will either way.

3) Extremely likely. Conservatives and libertarians are terrible at playing the game, and there’s a strong likelihood that they’ll find a way to either marginalize themselves or get locked out.

4) I believe that applications would need to be germane, contemporaneous, and that there would need to be some level of coordination between the states for it to be considered a discrete request for a convention.

5) No more than the Bill of Rights was a mistake. The option makes more sense when states are sovereign entities with general police power and near-total independence when it comes to setting policy for residents. It makes less sense as states become more dependent on the federal government and are more restricted in what policies they can pursue.

Q #5) No I do not believe it was a mistake to allow for amendments per Article 5 as specifically written. I think it is engenious.

Q#2) I also believe that it was NOT meant to be optional upon 2/3 of states voting for a convention.

The perfect example would be if 2/3 of States wanted the Federal government to be forced to balance its budget. Article 5 makes it possible to have an Amendment to the Constitution and a convention for this would be mandatory if 2/3 of states voted in favor.
It would be specifically for a balanced budget amendment, so it shouldnt be a runaway convention.

that even though Article V doesnt seem to specifically indicate it; I believe that the intent is to allow an Amendment for a specific item (or group of inter-related items) that 2/3 of the States have agreed they want. Therefore, the arguement of runaway conventions would be rediculous.

Its exactly like somebody adding spending for an unrelated item into a military spending bill. It shouldnt happen. In the time of out founding fathers, such a trickk would have been unthinkable, heracy, at least highly dishonest, thus they wouldn’t have thought to specifically state that the Amendment would have to be for a specific item, although thats what they intended, I believe.

To them, I believe, if a second or third unrelated item was being discussed, each individually would need to go for their own 2/3 vote for a different convention on that specific item.

Rouge Politics as has already been said, you’ve asked a lot of questions. Fortunately there are answers but you’d better be prepared for a LOT of reading. You can find answers to all of them at www.foavc.org.

Besides the FAQ pages you can also read the answers at http://www.foa5c.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=30

(Articles by Bill Walker).

To give you some brief answers which will be necessarily short for this post, you will still need to read the hundreds of pages of material.

What is your general opinion of an Article V Convention?

The convention is as valid a part of the Constitution as any other. The states have applied; therefore a convention is required. Either you believe the Constitution must be obeyed or you don’t. The key to truly knowing your position is what you believe as to calling a convention.

2. Does the “shall call” language of Article V mean congress has no choice if the requisite states make application?

Yes. The call, as admitted by the government in 2006 in open court is peremptory meaning there is no option. The Supreme Court has expressed this expressly no less than 4 times in its rulings on the matter.

a. If “shall call” leaves congress no option but to call a convention, and if congress reneges on that obligation, can the states assemble in an Article V Convention anyway? If the product of such a convention were ratified by 3/4ths of the states, would it be legal?

No. The Constitution prescribes a specific method of amendment proposal and for the states to hold a convention without obeying that procedure is clearly unconstitutional. Moreover the Supreme Court has ruled expressly such an action is unconstitutional. In the court action cited above the government admitted for Congress not to call when required to do so is a criminal violation of oath of office.

3. What are your thoughts on a “runaway convention” often cited as the overwhelming reason to avoid an Article V Convention?

The runaway convention is a myth. There was no runaway convention. Indeed the public record proves that nearly 150 votes by the states following the recommendation of the 1787 Federal Convention were required of the states to bring the Constitution into being. If even one vote had failed, there would have been no Constitution.

4. There have been hundreds of applications by the states. Far exceeding the numbers required to call such a convention. Two reasons for not calling the convention in spite of this are:

a. The requests have been on a variety of topics and are therefore not “germane.” Do you believe it is necessary for applications to be “germane?” Whichever position you take, how do you support it from a constitutional perspective?

The language of the Constitution is plain and direct and supported by rulings of the Supreme Court. A convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions. Therefore the topics of the applications are constitutionally irrelevant as the issue is the submission of the application of the states to Congress for a convention call. The subject of the application, a convention call, is common to 700 plus applications from 49 states and that is all that is constitutionally required. The remainder of the application, any amendment subject, is directed at the convention to consider, and therefore until the call is actually rendered, is not considered and then by the convention, not Congress.

b. The requests have been spread over a number of years and are not contemporaneous. Again, how is your position supported?

Again the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. As there is no term of time limit in Article V, such consideration does not exist.

5. Did the founding fathers make a mistake adding the state based Article V Convention option?

Actually as you will read, it was the state based option that first was considered at the 1787 Federal Convention. The congressional option was added almost at the end of the convention. The mistake was in assuming Congress would obey the Constitution and call which it has not.

a. Can we reasonably ignore the provisions of the Constitution where we think the founders made a mistake?

No. The argument is invalid. The amendment process exists to correct any mistakes made by the founders or if change is required in our law of the land. There is no reason in saying you support the Constitution then suggest that disobeying its provisions is a correct course of action.

1) I am undecided on the idea of a convention of the states because it might be difficult to control and would be open to other agendas, like FDR’s bill of rights, that we wouldn’t want and could end up being a waste of time.

There are other avenues for states to deal with objectionable congressional action, however, like nullification, especially concerning the matter of ObamaCare; it is just a matter of how far they want to go with a showdown to force congress to rethink what it wanted to do. Congress can also deal with the Supreme Court without having to amend the constitution to overturn it. There is no such thing as judicial supremacy where the court is transformed into a 9-man constitutional convention. That is an oligarchy and a violation of the balance of powers where the judicial branch is the weakest of the three branches.

2) I do not believe amendments coming out of a convention need the blessing of congress if ratified by 3/4 of the States. The original constitution did not, and I assume it follows with that same procedure just by the language of the Article.

3) See number 1

4) a & b This is new information for me, but it might have something to do with my opinion in #1. If there were focused requests, a convention might be called. The repeal of the 18th amendment is one case where the states voted for a convention to repeal, congress saw the writing on the wall and did it for them so there was no need for a convention. As far as some of the other examples given, like dealing with ObamaCare and a BBA, it is likely congress would want to be in the driver seat as far as the language.

5) Absolutely not. The framers intended to create a federation, not a monolithic central power that could just go running roughshod over the states on a whim. It is a check on all three branches of the Federal government for them to be able to amend the constitution independently.

Since you asked for opinions and included examples, like the BBA, I’d like to chime in on that subject. First, I am not so sure the states would want a BBA because they are addicted to the Federal handouts, and so it would likely be an uphill battle to get each of the legislatures to vote for a convention for that purpose, or to ratify such an amendment should it be passed by congress.

Additionally, I do not believe a BBA is in our best interests, not because I like all the spending, but because I do not believe it has as much millage in fixing that which makes the government harmful to society and our economy in general as we’ve been lead to believe. The government is far more expensive than just what it consumes of GDP directly every year. It also drives additional costs that show up in overhead with its various assortment of regulatory actions, and thus drives up the cost of the goods and services we buy. It also does this when it creates market distortions with its central economic planning apparatus, that we all end up paying for, sometimes unexpectedly like in the housing/financial crisis. None of those side effects of it flexing power it was never intended to have shows up in the budget, and with that power being unchecked by a BBA, anything in excess of whatever caps a BBA would impose, the cost of the object of government appetite to control would just be shifted to some other place where it can effect control – off budget – and we will all end up paying for it anyway. The basic problem is that government spends too much on budget, and off, because it has power to do so that it was never intended to have. A BBA will do very little to remedy that.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2011020302/

I acknowledge that R’s have not had 2/3 of the Senate since Reconstruction. So going the DC route involves getting some D votes.

However, R’s have never controlled both houses (1 state is unicameral) of 3/4 of the state legislature either.

Even in 2010, 16 states are controlled by the Ds. Rs control 25. We can add Nebraska to make it 26. 8 are split, so even adding those we get to 34. 4 short.

2010 is best R’s have done in state houses since pre FDR.

There is no magic bullet here for a Constitutional amendment. My suggestion is to focus on winning elections, and using statutory power to fix things.

the proper path would be to write the amendment prior to calling for the Article V Convention. Then call for a convention to address only that specific amendment. One that has already been carefully constructed through comprehensive consultation and negotiation with each of the individual state legislatures.

Apportionment of delegates should be negotiated in advance, and appointment of delegates should be made by the individual state legislatures because they are accountable to their constituents.

In order to control the process and ensure successful passage of the amendment, don’t make the formal call for the convention until you’re positive that the threshold of support for ratification of the specific amendment has been reached.