Some have suggested that Congress might simply refuse to call an Article V Convention of the States, even if it receives 34 applications from state legislatures for a convention. While we agree that Congress is generally disinclined to relinquish its own power (which is precisely why an Article V Convention is necessary), it is a settled matter of constitutional law that Congress must call the Convention upon receipt of the requisite 34 applications on the same subject matter. (1)

We know from the records of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that George Mason insisted that the new Constitution provide state legislatures a power co-equal to that of Congress to propose amendments, and that the Convention delegates unanimously agreed with him. The Founding Fathers thus used mandatory language in describing Congress’ duty to call a Convention under Article V, ensuring that the states would have a means of obtaining amendments they deemed necessary to provide an effective check on federal power.

Article V reads, in pertinent part, “The Congress . . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” (emphasis added). The use of the word “shall” in this provision confers upon Congress a duty that is, from a legal perspective, both “mandatory” and “ministerial.” In other words, Congress must call the Convention if 34 states apply for one on the same subject matter, regardless of whether it agrees that a Convention is necessary or appropriate. Because the duty is a “ministerial” one and is executive in nature, courts can and will enforce it, if necessary, by issuing either a writ of mandamus or a declaratory judgment. (2)

Alexander Hamilton made it abundantly clear that Congress cannot block an Article V Convention of the States when he wrote, in Federalist 85:

[T]he national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.

Hamilton then concludes, a few sentences later, that “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

This is precisely what we must do, by urging our state legislatures to pass applications for an Article V Convention of the States to propose amendments that will limit the power of the federal government.

For answers to other common Article V questions, check out our opposition response page.


1. See generally, Robert G. Natelson, “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing the Process,” 78 TENN. L. REV. 693, 733-738 (2011) (citing additional authorities).

2. Roberts v. United States, 176 U.S. 221, 230 (1900); see also Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (issuing a declaratory judgment to reinstate an improperly evicted member of Congress); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (rejecting state’s claim that its legislature and governor were not bound by a federal court’s injunction).

About The Author

Rita Dunway

After graduating summa cum laude from West Virginia University in 1998 with both a B.A. in Political Science and a B.S. in Journalism, Rita attended Washington and Lee University School of Law as a Benedum Scholar. She graduated cum laude and was admitted to the Virginia State Bar in 2001. Rita then spent several years working as Staff Counsel, and ultimately Senior Staff Counsel, for The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit civil liberties organization. Her duties involved advising and assisting affiliate attorneys across the country as they challenged government actions that infringed upon individuals’ civil rights. Rita has crafted legal arguments and written briefs for all levels of the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Rita has also been involved in public policy work at the local and state levels in Virginia for several years.