The Article V Solution - Demystifying a Dusty Tool By Rita Peters, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for Convention of States Action

Attachment: 3986/Article18-DemystifyingADustyToolCOSA122022.pdf | 





It’s time to dust 
off the tool the 
Founders gave us 
in Article V. 

  

THE ARTICLE V SOLUTION —  

DEMYSTIFYING A DUSTY TOOL

 

Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for Convention of States Action 

Updated November 2022

 

PERHAPS THE MOST unifying 
conservative trait is the conviction that 
our Founding Fathers designed an 
ingenious federal system that we ought 
to conserve. But as federalism lies dying 
and our society spirals toward socialism, 
there is dissension among conservatives 
about using the procedure the Founders 
left to the states to conserve it.

Because Article V’s amendment-propos-
ing convention process has never been 
used, some have branded it a mystical 
and dangerous power—a thing shrouded 
in mystery, riddled with unanswerable 
questions, and therefore best left alone. 
Some have literally labeled it a “Pando-

ra’s Box,” the opening of which would 
unleash all manner of evil upon our be-
leaguered nation.

Article V opponents accuse proponents 
of being reckless with the Constitution. 
They say we have no idea how a conven-
tion would work, who would choose the 
delegates, how votes would be appor-
tioned, or whether the topic of amend-
ments could be limited.  

My task today is to remove the shroud of 
mysticism by revealing what we do know 
about an Article V convention from its 
text, context, historical precedent, and 
simple logic. 

For starters, we know that the Founders’ 
whole purpose for including the conven-
tion mechanism was to provide a way for 
the states to bypass Congress in achiev-
ing needed constitutional amendments. 

An early draft of Article V vested Con-
gress with the sole power to propose 

constitutional amendments. Under that 
version, two-thirds of the states could pe-
tition Congress to propose amendments, 
but it was still Congress that did the pro-
posing. On Sept. 

15, 1787

, George Mason 

strenuously objected to this, pointing out 
that such a system provided no recourse 
for the states if the national government 
should become tyrannical, as he predict-
ed it would do. 

The result was the unanimous adoption of 
Article V in its current form, providing 
two ways for constitutional amendments 
to be proposed: Congress can propose 
them, or the states can propose amend-
ments at a convention called by Congress 
upon application from two-thirds, or 

34

, 

of the states. Regardless of which body 
proposes the amendments, proposals 
must be ratified by three-fourths, or 

38

, 

of the states in order to become effective.
The “unanswerable” questions about Ar-
ticle V do have answers. 

Continued on back page





The “unanswerable” 
questions about 
Article V do have 
answers. 

Continued from front page

We also know from history that voting at 
an Article V convention would be done 
on a one-state, one-vote basis. This is 
the universal precedent set by the 

32 

in-

terstate conventions that occurred pri-
or to the Constitution’s drafting. It ex-
plains why it was unnecessary for Article 
V to specify the number of delegates to 
be sent by each state; the states can send 
as many delegates as they like, but each 
state only gets one vote.

We know that state legislatures choose 
and instruct their convention delegates, 
who act as agents of the state legisla-
tures. Again, this is a matter of univer-
sal historical precedent for interstate 
conventions.

On Nov. 

14, 1788

, the Virginia General 

Assembly filed the very first application 
for an Article V Convention to propose 

a Bill of Rights, aptly branding the con-
vention “a convention of the States” to be 
composed of “deputies from the several 
States.”

Because Congress ultimately used its own 
Article V power to propose a Bill of Rights, 
that meeting was rendered unnecessary. 
But the application demonstrates the 
contemporaneous understanding that the 
convention process was state-led. The 
Supreme Court has likewise referred to 
the process as a “convention of states.”

Finally, we know that the topic speci-
fied in the convention applications does 
matter. Over 

400 

applications for an Ar-

ticle V convention have been filed since 
the drafting of the Constitution. The 
reason we have never had one is because 
there have never been 

34 

applications 

seeking a convention for the same pur-
pose. The state applications contain the 
agenda for an Article V convention, and 

until 

34 

states agree upon a convention 

agenda, there will be no convention.

Because the authority for an Article V 
convention is derived from the 

34 

state 

applications that trigger it, the topic for 
amendments specified in those applica-
tions is a binding limitation on the scope 
of the convention.

The unshrouded Article V convention 
isn’t a Pandora’s Box at all, because there 
is no such thing as magic in a box for us 
to fear—there is only history, law, and 
reason to guide faithful Americans in 
tending their government. And precisely 
because there is no such thing as magic, 
we’re going to need an effective tool to do 
the hard work of restoring our Republic.

It’s time to dust off the tool the Founders 
gave us in Article V and get started.

Originally published on TheBlaze.com

(540)441-7227 | 

C

ONVENTION

O

F

S

TATES

.

COM 

| Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates| | Twitter.com/COSproject | —- | Page Metadata || |Login Required to view? |No | |Created: |2024-02-08 20:19 GMT| |Updated: |2025-02-09 00:00 GMT| |Published: |2024-02-08 08:00 GMT| |Converted: |2025-11-11 12:29 GMT| |Change Author: |Eric Greenwood | |Credit Author: | |