Wiki_QA__##

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Title: Article V vs Constitutional Convention

Original CoS Document (slug): [[https://conventionofstates.com/article-v-vs-constitutional-convention|article-v-vs-constitutional-convention]]

Login Required to view? No

Created: 2023-03-04 13:06:26

Updated: 2025-01-29 19:32:41

Published: 2023-03-03 03:00:00

Converted: 2025-04-14T21:23:23.827974760


----




Those opposed to using Article V of the U.S. Constitution to restore Federalism insist that an Article V convention for proposing amendments is a 'constitutional convention'.  It is very important to know the difference.  Words matter and the words those who authored the constitution used particularly matter. This deliberate mischaracterization serves two purposes:

1. It allows opponents to paint this limited process as an open process that can totally rewrite the constitution.

2. It allows them to further distort history by saying "because the 1787 constitutional convention was a runaway, this constitutional convention has the potential to runaway".

Both premises are incorrect and are designed to sow fear into the hearts of otherwise patriotic citizens.  An Article V convention for proposing amendments is NOT a 'constitutional convention' and the 1787 constitutional convention was NOT a runaway.

This post will focus on the difference between an Article V convention for proposing amendments and a constitutional convention. 

**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%**

**An Article V** convention for proposing amendments is a process outlined in the constitution

//"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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...//." \\
\\
The Article V convention for proposing amendments can only propose amendments to the existing constitution, not write a new one.

**A 'constitutional convention'** is a convention called to create a new constitution.  This is NOT in the constitution.  There is no method in the constitution to call for a constitutional convention.

**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%**

**An Article V** convention is limited by the State's application to the topic / topics within the application

**A constitutional convention**  is unlimited in scope

**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%**

**An Article V** convention can be called on the application of 2/3 of the states

**A constitutional convention** needs unanimous consent of states to be bound

**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%**

**Amendments** proposed at an Article V convention are ratified individually by 3/4 of the states

**A new constitution** has to be ratified as a whole document by all the states that are to be bound by it

**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%**

Bottom line - an Article V convention for proposing amendments can not magically change into a constitutional convention no matter how the opposition tries to conflate the terms. 

For a more detailed explanation of the differences \\
Download our PDF: [[https://conventionofstates.com/files/an-article-v-convention-is-not-a-constitutional-convention-1|An Article V Convention is not a Constitutional Convention]]