How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention

By Paulsen, Michael Stokes | Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Summer 2011 | Go to article overview

How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention


Paulsen, Michael Stokes, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy


INTRODUCTION

Thirty-four is a magic number. A mathematician might explain that thirty-four is the smallest whole number greater than two-thirds of fifty. A political scientist, or a first grader, might explain that fifty has been the number of states in the United States since 1959. A constitutional law professor would note that thirty-four--the smallest whole number greater than two-thirds of fifty--is therefore the number of state legislatures that, under Article V of the Constitution, must have asked Congress to call a convention in order to trigger Congress's constitutional duty to call such a convention.

The basics are familiar to all: Article V provides that amendments to the Constitution may be proposed either by two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by "a Convention for proposing Amendments." (1) The latter method was designed as an alternative permitting the people to circumvent possible congressional intransigence in proposing needed constitutional reforms--perhaps including such things as reforms limiting national government power, something that Congress as an institution might not be inclined to propose. The former method has been employed, successfully, twenty-seven times--the significance of the twenty-seventh such occasion will become important to a proposition I advance later in this Essay. (2) The latter method--the convention route--has never successfully been employed. Yet.

Article V provides that, "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," Congress "shall" call such a convention. (3) The obligation of Congress to call a convention, once the legislatures of two thirds of the states have asked for one, is constitutionally mandatory; it is not committed to Congress's discretionary judgment. Congress has no choice in the matter. It has a nondiscretionary ministerial duty to call a constitutional convention when the magic number has been reached. This raises some truly fascinating collateral constitutional questions: May a federal court order Congress to call a convention if Congress refuses to do so, and who would have standing to bring such an extraordinary lawsuit? Where and when would such a convention meet and what rules would govern its proceedings? Does Congress have any legislative power in this regard, incidental to its duty simply to call a convention?

These questions have ready answers, and I will address them, however briefly, at the end of this Essay. But I want to focus here on the most important, logically prior, issue: Under precisely what circumstances does Congress have a duty to call a constitutional convention?

In this Essay, I take up the question of "How to Count to Thirty-four"--constitutionally--so as to trigger the obligation of Congress under Article V to call a constitutional convention for considering amendments. Thirty-four what? What counts as a valid constitutional convention application? What happens when a state has submitted multiple convention applications, some valid and some invalid? Thirty-four when? Can constitutional convention applications be cumulated over time? Thirty-four says who? Who judges whether a particular convention application is valid and what the counting rules are?

The big question of when Congress has a duty to call a constitutional convention can be broken down into several smaller ones, each one intriguing and important in its own right (and providing the organizational structure for this Essay):

First: The "Limited" Convention Question. Can there be such a thing as a "limited" constitutional convention--that is, a convention limited to the consideration and proposal of amendments only of a certain prescribed text or on a certain prescribed subject? The answer is no, as I will explain presently. Though, as I will also explain, less turns on this than may meet the eye, because everyone agrees that there certainly may be a general, unrestricted amendment-subject convention. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.