Proponents of an Article V convention for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including prominent constitutional conservatives such as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Rob Natelson of the American Legislative Exchange Council, have recently advanced this mechanism. The push requires two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a convention. The concept received further national attention when Florida Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio endorsed the notion. However, a significant legal and political counter-argument suggests that this approach is an unwise undertaking given the current political climate and potential for unintended outcomes.
The Constitutional and Political Risk
The pursuit of an Article V convention carries an inherent risk, which some observers have likened to using an unreliable or unpredictable tool for a delicate constitutional operation. The constitutional process, outlined in Article V itself, provides two methods for proposing amendments: either by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for upon the application of two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures. In either case, ratification requires three-fourths (38) of the states.
Currently, the idea of a convention is enjoying a degree of popularity across different political ideologies. However, questions remain regarding the practicality and predictability of a convention called under the second method.
Assessing Proposed Amendments
The specific goals driving some of these calls, such as the proposals outlined in Gov. Abbott’s “Texas Plan,” have been subject to public debate and scrutiny, as noted by commentators like Jacob Sullum at Reason. While a discussion about the merit of specific amendments is distinct from the debate over the convention mechanism, the nature of the proposed amendments adds weight to the concerns over the convention itself.
