James Ray, Greensboro entrepreneur, who is old enough to retire but prefers working up to 50 hours a week, explains why Congress is obligated legally to call for an Article V convention which it has refused to do for more 200 years.

Alexander Hamilton wrote the final version of Article V of the U.S. Constitution which states “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.”

Here the word “shall” means “must.” The Founding Fathers described the obligation of Congress to call an Article V Convention as peremptory, meaning absolute, final, and not entitled to delay or reconsideration. This Article neither specifies topics for discussion nor time limits. The President does not sign it and cannot veto it. Congress has only the power to call an Article V Convention and to choose between the two methods of ratification. (Two-thirds of the Senate and House means two-thirds of members present with one more than half the members in session.)

This Article was written to give people the power for a peaceful rebellion by the states, protecting them from an oppressive, usurping Federal Government and Congress gone wild. President Dwight D. Eisenhower echoed the founding father’s reason for this amendment best when he said, “Through their state legislatures and without regard to the Federal Government, the people can demand a convention to propose amendments that can and will reverse any trend they see as fatal to true representative Government.”

There have been many Supreme Court challenges to congressional non-action required by this amendment. In Hawke v Smith 253 US 221 (1920) the Supreme Court stated “…The language of the article is plain and admits no doubt in its interpretation…” In U.S. v Sprague, the Court stated “The United States asserts that article V is clear in statement and meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction.” However, the courts have also ruled that the word “shall” in this Article can be used by Congress as “optional,” and Congress does not have to call a convention unless it deems it necessary.

In 1929, the state of Wisconsin petitioned Congress to call an Article V Convention (1929 CR-Senate page 03369) listing the names of 35 states supporting this petition. In spite of the clear obligation to call such a convention, Congress took no action.There have been a total of 338 petitions by states calling for an Article V Convention on different matters.  But Congress continues to refuse to call a single one.

The Congressional Record shows Article V Convention petitions since 1929 total 338 with 14 rescissions.

The most important fact is not that 338 state petitions (almost 10 times the number required, including 49 of our 50 states) have been filed but that only 35 states are required to petition Congress for this convention. Congress has no options. It is impelled to call an Article V Convention by the Constitution of the United States.

The opponents of this Article express their fear that unreasonable proposals will be made. But they ignore the fact that, regardless of their thinking, they are required by law to call an Article V Convention; any decisions made by this convention must be ratified by 75 percent of the state legislatures or state conventions before they can become law.

If called, the convention could take our country back from professional politicians. No matter what party, when many politicians serve too long, they start putting their own interests above the interests of the people. This convention could help reform the Congress and make it more answerable to the laws and mandates that affect its constiuency.

The federal courts, siding with the opponents of Article V, are much of the problem.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” – Edmund Burke