To view this on the COS website, click here are-there-limits-to-article-v-convention

Are There Limits to an Article V Convention?

That very question ignores the elephant in the room. To fully understand the concern, it is necessary first to frame the question in its proper context and add some perspective.

A frequently asked question is, “What limits or controls are in place to keep an Article V Convention to protect the process from amendments being proposed that would weaken our Constitution?”

That very question ignores the elephant in the room.

To fully understand the concern, it is necessary first to frame the question in its proper context and add some perspective.

The elephant in the room is the congressional pathway to pass proposed amendments to the Constitution, where there are NO limits or controls. This is why there are, on average, 100 proposed amendments to the Constitution during each session of Congress.

However, there are limits and controls in place for an Article V convention that don’t exist in Congress. Articles V Convention Safeguards

They begin with the commission or instructions given to the delegates from the state’s legislators. Those delegates, also known as commissioners, are appointed by the legislators and MUST act as their agents. They cannot act on their own beliefs or agenda, but instead forward only the interests of the State that commissioned them.

Civil agency laws exist in every state that apply to these commissioners no differently than a realtor or sales agent. If the delegate deviates from the instructions given to them, they could be subject to penalties. Many states have already passed felony criminal legislation for those delegates who deviate from their instructions. This would apply not only to the delegates introducing a proposed amendment, but also to those delegates voting on that same amendment.

The presiding officer of the convention also plays a role in the limits and controls in the convention. Before any proposed amendment that deviates from the calling were to make it to the convention floor for a vote, the presiding officer would declare it to be out of order and unconstitutional. This is because of the inconsistency with the state applications by 34 states that must be the same for a call mandated by Congress. That same presiding officer would also be held accountable (through criminal penalties) by their state to follow the direction given to them by their state legislature.

Next, any outcome from the Article V Convention is likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court. That’s just the way our society is today. One way or another, the process and its outcome will be reviewed and either rejected or validated. The courts have constitutional authority over the process, as demonstrated numerous times throughout history. Article V Court Cases

In 1910, Congress established a constitutional precedent that only the topics forwarded to Congress in the state’s applications can be addressed in an Article V Convention. It did so when Congress did NOT call for an Article V Convention, even though the requisite two-thirds of the states following the Constitution had made applications. Since then, this precedent has been repeated over a dozen times.

Currently, there are 39 states that have open applications for an Article V Convention, but a convention has not been called because 34 of those states (2/3 of the states) do not have the same topics in their applications. Congress established a precedent that carries over into and during the Article V Convention. This is why only the topics in the applications of these 34 states can be addressed in an Article V Convention.

The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention - Michael B. Rappaport

Article V and the Law of Constitutional Conventions - Roman Hoyos

The final control point is the State ratification process.

The States are discerning and have rejected six proposed amendments that never came close to weakening the Constitution in ways described by those opposed to an Article V convention. Those six rejected amendments during ratification have established a clear threshold that we can expect from the process, which would negate any fear-mongering that the opposition may have about an Article V process.

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2025-04-03 04:06 GMT
Updated:	2025-05-14 23:51 GMT
Published:	2025-05-12 19:08 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:05 GMT
Change Author:	John Poelstra
Credit Author:	John Polestra