This document explains what the Congressional Research Service report says about Article V and the actual significance it plays in the Article V process.

Attachment: 75/CRS-Response.pdf

Congressional Research Service Reports to  Congress on Article V  Since 2012, the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) has issued two  reports for Congress on Article V of the Constitution.  One of them explains the  history of Article V, the Founding Fathers’ motivations for including its two  separate mechanisms for proposing constitutional amendments, and the procedures  governing states’ applications for an Article V Convention. 1   The other discusses the  emergence of renewed interest in invoking Article V’s Convention mechanism and  the questions that are sometimes raised regarding the logistics and procedures for  such a Convention. 2     While both documents contain a wealth of historical data and a survey of  scholarly opinions regarding Article V, it is important to bear in mind that they are,  in fact, merely a collection of data and scholarship rather than a source of definitive  answers to the questions presented.  The CRS does not advocate any particular  position on the use of Article V to call for a Convention to propose amendments.    The reports acknowledge a number of well-established facts about the  operation of Article V’s Convention mechanism, including:     Congress is obligated to call a Convention for proposing amendments if 34  states apply;     The Founders included this process as a way for the states to bypass  Congress in getting needed amendments passed;     The process is an alternative to federal deadlock;                                                              1  Thomas J. Neale, CRS Report R42592,  The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional  Amendments:  Historical perspectives for Congress  (Oct. 22, 2012).  2  Thomas J. Neale, CRS Report R42589,  The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional  Amendments:  Contemporary Issues for Congress  (March 7, 2014).  Response to CRS Reports on Article V  Page 2       Congress has no authority to “veto” amendments proposed at an Article V  Convention; and     The President plays no role in the process.  The CRS also acknowledges that under the plain text of Article V, Congress’  authority over the amendment process is limited to (1) proposing amendments of its  own, (2) summoning a Convention, and (3) submitting Convention-proposed  amendments to the states for ratification. 3   However, the author of these documents  reports that Congress has “laid claim to” a number of other prerogatives as well,  including tracking state applications, establishing procedures to summon a  Convention, setting the timeframe for deliberations, determining the number of  delegates and selection process for them, setting convention procedures, and  arranging for transmission of the proposed amendments to the states. 4   While most of these functions are merely components of Congress’ explicit,  ministerial duties under Article V, at least two of them—determining the number  and selection method of delegates and establishing Convention rules—are  not   proper functions of Congress under Article V.  Any attempt by Congress to assert  such authority would raise significant constitutional concerns.    As Article V expert, author, and constitutional historian Robert Natelson  explains, “[T]he Article V Convention is a creature *** of the state legislatures, not  of Congress, nor of the people directly.  Those legislatures, therefore, determine how  delegates are allocated and selected.” 5   Natelson explains how this conclusion  follows from historical convention practice and points out that any scheme by which  Congress prescribes delegate selection procedures would undercut the Founders’  very purpose for including the Convention mechanism in Article V:  to bypass  Congress in achieving needed constitutional amendments. 6   The power to adopt rules for its proceedings is vested in the Convention itself,  according to Founding-Era custom and historical precedent. 7   It is not a matter over                                                              3  Report R42589,  supra , p. 4.  4   Id.  5  Robert G. Natelson, “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention:  Rules Governing the  Convention Process,” 78 T ENN .   L.   R EV .   693, 740 (2011).  6   Id.  7   Id .   ( citing Dyer v. Blair , 390 F.Supp. 1291, 1307 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (“Article V identifies the body— either a legislature or a convention—which must ratify a proposed amendment.  The act of  ratification is an expression of consent to the amendment by that body.  By what means that body  shall decide to consent or not to consent is a matter for that body to determine for itself.”).  While  Dyer  addresses ratifying conventions, the same rule applies to a proposing convention.  Response to CRS Reports on Article V  Page 3    which Congress exercises discretion. 8   The rules set by the Convention include the  rule of suffrage, but the initial rule is “one state, one vote.” 9   So these two powers—the power to regulate delegate selection and  apportionment and to adopt Convention rules—are  not  within the purview of  Congress.  And in fact, the CRS Report’s assertion that Congress has “laid claim to”  these prerogatives appears to be merely a recognition of the fact that certain  Members of Congress have, at various times in the past, introduced legislation  purporting to address these matters.  Each of these efforts has failed, and none has  been attempted since 1991.                                                                8   Id.  See also  Russell L. Caplan, C ONSTITUTIONAL  B RINKMANSHIP :    A MENDING THE  C ONSTITUTION BY  N ATIONAL  C ONVENTION ,   119-20 (1988).  9   Id. , at 741.