Happy Article V Day on Sep 15th, and Happy Constitution Day on Sept 17th! Many resources are available to support a celebration all week long, such as party like it’s 1787, take the Constitution Challenge, download a FREE Pocket Constitution, and many more. Celebrating engenders fun and action! While reveling in the wonderful gift of the Constitution to We the People, we need you to sign the petition, join the movement & become active in your district, join COS gatherings such as the upcoming Town Hall in Wilkesboro on Sept 24th to show your support, 
and influence and encourage your North Carolina State Senator & Senate leadership to pass HJR 235. (Note: following the links in this article is not necessary to understand it. Following them will allow you to take action including joining in as well as learning lessons and growing in confidence.)
For us grassroots activists for whom learning is life, joining the Convention of States (COS) movement becomes a fulfilling and continuous learning journey, from day one. This is especially true of the Constitution itself, which gives rise to the COS movement in Article V. One of the first lessons I encountered was the Constitution as written, versus as interpreted. Many of us have seen or been given pocket versions of the Constitution, resembling a small, short pamphlet of a few dozen pages; 40 pages or so depending on format. That’s the written Constitution of a mere 7,000 words including amendments. In its 237-year history, quite a bit of case law and other related documents have accumulated as our Republic has operated, and various “tests” or trials of it have worked their way through the judicial branch. The entire Constitution as interpreted is over 3,000 pages, which is used in practice by the federal government and unfortunately used to dictate our decisions and control our lives. So how does this apply to Article V itself and the COS movement? Let’s explore that further.
First, why is Article V so important? The mess in DC is a structural problem, not solely a people problem, as previous elections have borne out which taught the COS founders. The original structure and governing principles of the federal government – ground rules, boundaries and restraints – are given in the Constitution as written. Article V is the provision for making amendments to the Constitution, in order to modify or adapt that structure to future situations. As our Republic has operated since its conception and inception 237 years ago, one set of restraints has emerged as necessary and insufficiently written: restraints on the federal leviathan itself. The framers were aware and classically well-educated in the timeless frailties and temptations of human nature. They were concerned that over time, aggregated federal power could cause trouble for the liberty, freedom and sovereignty of We the People and our vanguards, the States. That awareness was especially acute in George Mason, a man of greatness in the first order.
Restraints such as term limits were not written originally due to mores at the time about citizen/servant officials who would return to the private sector, a higher place of honor and repute. The notion of a career as a politician or federal bureaucrat would have been an odd and lowly one.
On Article V day, September 15th, 1787, George Mason asserted that “...the plan of amending the Constitution [is] exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes from 15 Sep 1787). That statement assured We the People through the States’ an ability to amend, via the text of Article V itself (highlighted): “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”, and has given rise to the current COS movement as a needed check on the power and control in DC. And that check is sorely needed now, due to the tyranny caused by career politicians, the runaway debt and fiscal irresponsibility, and the continuous, oppressive, crowding out of our liberty and independence due to the micromanagement of our lives from DC’s federal bureaucracy. The structure must be changed, and the Constitution’s Article V is a tool and a solution as big as the problem.
George Mason’s statement and Article V itself is short, sweet, and to the point – emblematic of the Constitution as written. So how has Article V been utilized, challenged, and interpreted over time? Fortunately, learned scholars such as Robert G. Natelson has culled and gathered many sources to interpret the meaning of Article V. Natelson is the most published active scholar on the Constitution’s Article V amendment procedure. His approachable book of 138 pages is The Law of Article V: State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments (2nd Edition). He relates very clearly the intent, purpose, prior use, and method and process of calling and convening an Article V Convention of States for proposing structural fixes to the mess in DC; amendments to the Constitution that are lacking and clearly needed. 
This instills confidence today in COS grassroots activists like me, in our movement, and in the legality and applicability of the three subject areas of the COS Resolution: term limits on federal politicians and officials, federal fiscal restraints such as a balanced budget, and restraints on federal jurisdiction and overreach. This Resolution sits before the North Carolina State Senate as HJR 235. Please contact your State Senator and other leaders, and urge them to act today to bring it to a vote and pass it.
So what exactly is Article V, as interpreted? Natelson’s book describes this in detail: interpretations throughout history, prior precedents of Article V cases, prior conventions among states and state legislative resolutions and applications adopted, founding-era ratification debates, law, and other documents as evidence of meaning, etc. Here are my highlights and takeaways:
- Few written details are given about Article V institutions or procedures, like many other elements of the Constitution, eg writ of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, etc. Studying history and gathering a working understanding of the law and the practices of the people involved – the historical context – allows us to know all about those details.
- Inter-colonial conventions were common before Independence; there were roughly 20. After, between 1776 and 1787, there were 11 conventions of states. During the two centuries since ratification, conventions continued including the most important “Colorado River Commission” and the Compact that resulted. Records from each are available demonstrating convention protocol and procedure.
- 50 court cases exist that cast light on the Article V procedure since its founding.
- If alive today, the founders of our Republic and framers of the Constitution would likely be astounded at the lack of a current understanding and use of conventions, as well as the misguided fear, uncertainty, doubt and objections about their use.
- Many modern Article V interpretations were not rooted in actual research of historical events, context and vocabulary, but instead were agenda driven. A “Science Fiction” version of Article V emerged in the 1960s through 1980s after a first wave of agenda- and outcome-driven scholarship.
- This has since been corrected in two later waves of scholarship, especially a third wave of published interpretations beginning in 2010, which “...in the aggregate, they fully reconstruct convention procedures and law from all the historical and legal sources.” Key principles from that third wave now frame Article V. Quoting Natelson:
- A convention for proposing amendments is a diplomatic meeting among delegations representing the state legislatures – that is, a convention of the states.
- It is a limited-purpose gathering, not a "constitutional convention."
- It was modeled after a long tradition of limited-purpose multi-state assemblies that followed established protocols and procedures.
- Not only can the convention be limited as to subject, but the Founders expected all or most amendments conventions to be so limited.
- Congressional power over the convention process is restricted to counting and classifying applications and setting a time and place for meetings.
- Article V questions can, and often have been, adjudicated by the courts.
- Quoting Natelson and the aggregate text and law that he cites, the Constitution's grants of power to various assemblies (Congress, state legislatures, federal and state conventions) are as follows, which are the sole source of authority for amending it:
- Authority to two-thirds of each house of Congress to "propose" amendments.
- Authority to two-thirds of the state legislatures to make "Application" for a convention for proposing amendments.
- Authority to Congress to "call" that convention.
- Authority to the convention "for proposing" amendments.
- Authority to Congress to decide whether ratification shall be by state legislatures or state conventions.
- If Congress selects the former method, the authority to state legislatures to ratify or reject it.
- If Congress selects the latter method, implied authority and a mandate to each state legislature to call a ratifying convention.
- Authority to three-fourths of those conventions to ratify.
- Authority incidental to the foregoing, such as the power of all Article V assemblies to establish their own rules, and the power of state legislatures to define the scope of their applications, to determine the mode for selecting commissioners (delegates), and to fix how state ratifying conventions are selected.
- Many templates and forms for convention are culled and presented from prior successful meetings in convention: calls, rules of order, operating procedures, motions, and so on.
What a tremendous confidence booster! This broadly outlines the Article V convention process as well as fills in all details
of the process and governance – from the Constitution as written, and using the related interpretation. There is far more to it than what’s described here – this summary just scratches the surface of the many nuances of the historical events surrounding Article V. One of the eye-opening lessons of the COS movement is the rich historical tapestry surrounding it, the Constitution, and Article V. Party likes it’s 1787 indeed! With the dearly departed George Mason as the lauded guest of honor.
What does all of this mean today – what actionable lessons does it teach? George Mason gave We the People a great gift and tool to use when the federal government and its agents in DC become abusive, oppressive, or exceed their enumerated powers, and infringe on our sovereignty. Congress continues to refuse to adopt necessary and desirable amendments to curb its own authority. Much needed amendments such as Term Limits and a Balanced Budget poll in super-majority levels among We the People – 70% to 85% depending on pollster, question wording, and time period. And have for decades. Yet Congress does not act to limit their tenure or power of the purse while power, debt, and strangling regulations accumulate. They will likely never act to limit themselves. After all, their quest for power is as timeless and unchanging as human nature itself. We the People must act, and act now, as described at the beginning of this article.
