THE OTHER WAY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION: THE ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AMENDMENT PROCESS
[ ... ]
V. CONCLUSION
The history of the convention method of amending the Constitution is filled with much confusion and debate about its meaning, proper application, and scope. One of the major reasons it has never been used is the prevalence of doubts and concerns about the limitations that could be placed on a convention. The convention method of proposing amendments may never realize its potential so long as such confusion exists. Much of the fear surrounding a convention is unfounded. The Convention Clause’s text and history indicate that it grants power to the States to limit the scope of any such convention. In addition, the States have the ability to reject any amendments proposed by a convention through the ratification process.
A possible solution to clarify the Convention Clause power would be for the States to petition for, or for Congress to propose, an amendment to Article V itself. It could be amended to clarify the constitutional convention amendment process so that the purposes of the Convention Clause can be given effect. Such an amendment could explicitly state that Congress cannot limit or control a constitutional convention but that the States may exercise such control, that specific applications can be limited to single issues, and that the resulting convention may only consider those issues. The amendment could also include basic procedures and details for how a convention would operate to ensure its independence from Congress, and it could explicitly answer questions about the funding of a convention, the selection of delegates and a location, and other procedural and logistical questions. Article V could also be amended to decrease Congress’s power over the convention process to further the Convention Clauseʹs purpose of allowing the States to circumvent a corrupt or unresponsive Congress. An amendment could empower a new independent body, perhaps made up of the governor of each state, or the chief justice of each state’s supreme court, to call a convention when a sufficient number of states have applied, to oversee the convention, to ensure it does not exceed its scope, and to make it clear that Congress does not have convention oversight powers.
James Kenneth Rogers