Talk:Article Five of the United States Constitution

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Constitution High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Reconstruction Amendments

The process of how the reconstruction amendments became part of the Constitution should at least be referred to. By no means was Article V's standard lived up to, and at the very least it's controversal. ~~

Merge unsuccessful amendments?

I see no reason why Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution should not be merged with this page. The two pages simply appear to be saying the same thing twice in different pages, and it would be easier and more logical if they were combined into one page. - Terraxos, 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better to eliminate the excess from Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution than add so much information that has little relevence to Article Five. The failed attempts are discinct enough to warrant their own space. --N Prado 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with N Prado-- eliminate the amendment procedure stuff from Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution and vice-versa, but leave as two separate articles. QuixoticKate 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on merge. Keep Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution as its own entry. The amendment procedure stuff should be abbreviated or eliminated. There should be more info about the six proposed amendments that passed congress but failed with the states. There should be info about at least some of the bills proposed by congress that failed to pass. There could also be info about grassroots pushes for amendments that were unsuccessful in even getting a member of congress to propose them, if notable enough. Schizombie 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a list of all applications of the states, or should that be a separate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.192.118 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

I'm at a loss trying to decipher this sentence, if someone could clean it up: "On the questionable assumption that only state requests addressing the same possible amendment are to be counted by Congress, which is not stated in Article V, the requisite number of states never made such a request although two proposals have come just two states shy of the required number." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.100.56 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is that there is nothing in the article that says the applications of 2/3 of the states to call a council all have to be for a specific amendment. So in theory, even if the applications are made 50, 100, or more years apart from each other, for totally different reasons, when 2/3 of the states have made them, a council should be called. This is obviously not how anyone has ever seriously interpreted the article, and this "questionable assumption" is the POV probably of some kind of strict constructionalist or otherwise fringe political thinker.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A textbook...

One of the government textbooks have the "that no Amendment...of the First Article; and" at the beginning marked off. Is this an error? Or an amendment made it marked off? 75.128.42.136 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image is misleading

The first image in the "Procedure for amending the Constitution" is misleading. The image does not mention that the convention is requested by the states and Congress is then forced to call the convention. It is not Congress' decision whether to call that convention or not, as the image implies. Can we get a new image please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.66.117 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

successful use of the second method

The text reads "The second method, the convention option, which Alexander Hamilton (writing in The Federalist No. 85) believed would serve as a barrier "against the encroachments of the national authority",[8] has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of activity in the states." But this method was quite clearly used once, for the 21st amendment, repealing the 18th (prohibition) as explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Background — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7912:CA00:6C60:1BB4:D7E0:D09B (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 21st Amemdment was ratified via the State ratifying conventions method. However, the text you quote is talking about a method for proposing constitutional amendments. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification since 1789 have originated in The Congress. The second method for proposing amendments to the states, via a Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, a method which Hamilton (as you noted) believed would serve as a barrier "against the encroachments of the national authority", has never been used. Hope this explanation is helpful. Drdpw (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This article is incomplete with no discussion on how the Article came to be. Why the 1808 date? Why these three specific shielded clauses? Etc CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph is wrong

I've made the appropriate edit twice and it was re-edited each time back to it's original form. Assembly314 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect: Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] Assembly314 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct: Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures,Congress shall a convention to propose amendments.[1] Assembly314 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the citation should be pointing at Article V itself and not an interpretation of the amendment process. Assembly314 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To recap: this is incorrect and misleading: "or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures" States do not "call for" the convention. They apply for it; and it's not a "convention of the states" it's a "convention to propose amendments" (to a FEDERAL convention). Assembly314 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note:After making a modification myself, which was tweaked positively, the phrase now (at this moment in time) reads: "or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures." This wording follows the NARA source nicely. Drdpw (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modification to diagram?

Hi, The diagram on this page is very well done. Kudos. That said, is there any chance the text in the upper red circle be updated? The term "convention of states" with respect to Article V, isnt a "thing." State's do not form a convention to apply or call or anything else. Individual states apply and individual states ratify. The convention isn't "of states" - it is a conventiontion of elected delegates, a convention to propose. In any case, the diagram is great, it could be better. My main issue here is that a "convention of states" is a special interest brand, it's not grounded in the Constitution at all.

Thanks, Assembly314 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could modify the diagram, though not right away. Drdpw (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

This section was deleted on the grounds that there were not enough constitutional scholars represented? They are all from perenially reliable sources, some journalists, some academics... Superb Owl (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]