Article V Conventions
Updated: Jan 19
Do you love it?
On this Valentine's Day, here's your eyebrow-raiser: How about enforcing the Constitution rather than trying to change it?
Opposition to an Article V convention—
a process that allows two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) to call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution—centers on fears of creating a constitutional crisis and the lack of established rules for the proceeding. While advocates see it as a tool to limit federal power, critics argue it risks rolling back fundamental civil rights and freedoms.
Here are the primary reasons why Article V conventions are considered risky or "not good" by opponents:
Risk of a "Runaway Convention": There is no constitutional limit preventing a convention from exceeding its original mandate. A convention called to discuss one topic (e.g., a balanced budget) could potentially rewrite entirely different parts of the Constitution.
Lack of Clear Rules: The Constitution does not outline how delegates are selected, how they are apportioned, or how the convention operates. This ambiguity leads to fears that the process could be hijacked by special interests or become a "free-for-all".
Threat to Fundamental Rights: Critics fear that a convention could be used to revoke established rights, such as freedom of speech, privacy, or religion.
Uncertainty and Legal Disputes: Because an Article V convention has never been called in U.S. history, it is unclear how Congress would count applications or how disputes would be resolved. The Supreme Court has previously indicated that such disputes might be considered "political questions" outside federal court jurisdiction.
Potential for Undemocratic Outcomes: There is no guarantee of "one person, one vote" in a convention, potentially allowing a minority of the population to force through radical changes that affect all Americans.
Comments