The past 10 years, however, have seen a gradual resurgence of interest in and support for the Article V Convention alternative. Advocacy groups across a wide range of the political spectrum are pushing for conventions to consider various amendments to remedy what they regard as legislative and policy deadlock at the federal level. A companion report, CRS Report R44435, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments , provides tracking and policy analysis of current activity in Congress, the states, and the Article V Convention advocacy community. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress , provides comprehensive information and analysis of the convention mechanism, including a detailed examination of constitutional and statutory provisions, origins and original intent at the Constitutional Convention, case studies of major campaigns for an Article V Convention, and a review of the role of the states in the process. Background: Article V of the U.S. Constitution

As noted directly above, Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two procedures to amend the nation's fundamental charter. The second, the "Article V Convention" alternative, requires Congress, "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States"—34 at present—to call "a Convention for Proposing Amendments...."
Amendments ratified by the states under either procedure are indistinguishable and have equal force; they are both "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution...." Both modes of amendment share key constitutional requirements. Factors Contributing to the Revival of the Article V Convention

As noted previously, from the 1960s through the early 1980s, supporters of the Article V Convention alternative mounted campaigns to consider diverse issues. The failure of these efforts was followed by nearly three decades of relative inactivity. The next section of this report will identify and provide an analysis for Congress of the most important policy questions Congress might be called on to address. Would it call a convention and then stand aside, or would it be the "guardian" of a convention? Calling a Convention: The Requirement

Moving beyond the fundamental issue of its role in the Article V Convention process, the Constitution instructs Congress in plain language to call an Article V Convention once the legislatures of two-thirds of the states have submitted applications: Congress "... shall [emphasis added] call a Convention for proposing Amendments....." While a legal analysis is beyond the scope of this report, most legal scholars conclude that Congress must call a convention. Given the founders' intentions, on what grounds could Congress decline to call a convention? A range of constitutional scholars maintains that, contrary to Charles Black's assertion, quoted earlier, a convention may be limited to a specific issue or issues contained in state applications; in fact, some observers maintain that it must be so limited. This issue has been recognized in recent Congresses. The Goldwater Institute's 2010 study, which focused on the role of the states in the process, similarly found that Congress would be required to refer amendments approved by an Article V Convention to the states, but that the amendments must fall within the convention's mandate:
Because the convention for proposing amendments is the state legislatures' fiduciary, it must follow the instructions of its principals—that is, limit itself to the agenda, if any, that states specify in their applications.... Nevertheless, the President's role under an Article V Convention has been the subject of a range of policy questions and proposals over the years. Would Congress have the authority to attach a ratification deadline to any amendment or amendments proposed by a convention, as opposed to one proposed by Congress? In addition, other guideposts, if not simple answers, exist in the broad range of sources identified and cited in this report.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways to amend the nation's fundamental charter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, may propose amendments to the states for ratification, a procedure that has been used for all 27 current amendments. Alternatively, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, 34 at present, Article V directs that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...." This alternative, known as an "Article V Convention," has yet to be implemented. This report examines the Article V Convention alternative, focusing on related contemporary issues for Congress. A companion report, CRS Report R44435, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments, identifies and provides analysis of recent activity in Congress, the states, and the Article V Convention advocacy community. Another report, CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress, examines the procedure's origins and history and provides an analysis of the role of the states in calling a convention.
From the 1960s through the early 1980s, supporters of Article V conventions mounted vigorous unsuccessful campaigns to call conventions to consider then-contentious issues of national policy, including a ban on school busing to achieve racial balance, restrictions on abortions, apportionment of state legislatures, and, most prominently, a requirement that the federal budget be balanced, except in wartime or other extraordinary circumstances. Although they came close to the constitutional requirement, none of these campaigns attained applications from 34 states.
With the failure of these efforts, interest in the Article V Convention alternative declined for more than 20 years, but over the past decade, there has been a gradual resurgence of attention to and support for a convention. Advocacy groups across a broad range of the political spectrum have embraced the convention mechanism as an alternative to perceived policy deadlock at the federal level. Using the Internet and social media to build campaigns and coalitions that once took much longer to assemble, they are pushing for a convention or conventions to consider various amendments, including the well-known balanced budget requirement, restrictions on the authority of the federal government, repeal of the corporate political contributions elements of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and others.
This report identifies a range of policy questions Congress might face if an Article V Convention seemed imminent. Some of these include the following: what constitutes a legitimate state application? Does Congress have discretion as to whether it must call a convention? What legislative vehicle would be appropriate to call a convention? Could a convention consider any issue, or would it be limited to the specific issue cited in state applications? Could a "runaway" convention propose amendments outside its mandate? Could Congress choose not to propose a convention-approved amendment to the states? What role, if any, does the President have? What role would Congress have in the mechanics of a convention, including rules of procedure and voting, number and apportionment of delegates, funding and duration, service by Members of Congress, and other related questions? Congress could consult a range of information resources under these circumstances, including the record of the founders' intentions and actions in establishing the Article V Convention alternative, scholarly works cited in this report, historical examples and precedents, and the body of relevant hearings, reports, and bills produced by Congress, particularly when it examined this question between the 1970s and the 1990s.