Stanford Law Library 3 6105 062 183 632 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY EMANUEL CELLER, New York, Chairman FRANCIS E. WALTER. Pennsylvania PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey E. L. FORRESTER, Georgia ROBERT T. ASHMORE, South Carolina JOHN DOWDY, Texas LESTER HOLTZMAN, New York J. CARLTON LOSER, Tennessee HERMAN TOLL, Pennsylvania ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin GEORGE A. KASEM, California WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH, Ohio WILLIAM E. MILLER, New York RICHARD H. POFF, Virginia WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida ARCH A. MOORE, JR., West Virginia H. ALLEN SMITH, California GEORGE MEADER, Michigan ALBERT H. BOSCH, New York JOHN E. HENDERSON, Ohio JOHN V. LINDSAY, New York WILLIAM T. CAHILL, New Jersey BESS E. DICK, Staff Director WILLIAM R. FOLEY, General Counsel WALTER M. BESTERMAN, Legislative Assistant WALTER R. LEE, Legislative Assistant CHARLES J. ZINN, Law Revision Counsel CYRIL F. BRICKFIELD, Counsel II LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL JANUARY 30, 1959. To the Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary: Article V of the Constitution provides that Congress, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, shall call a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Since the Constitution's adoption 169 years ago, there have been over 200 State applications calling for conventions to amend the Constitution on a wide variety of subjects, including the direct election of Senators, Federal income taxes, prohibition of polygamy, repeal of the 18th amendment, and the general or complete revision of the Constitution itself. Despite this number of applications, the constitutional method of amendment has never been employed. No doubt many of these State petitions are no longer valid. Petitions, for example, for the direct election of Senators and the repeal of the 18th amendment have been rendered null by reason of the 17th and 21st amendments, respectively, to the Constitution. In addition, the lapse of time and other reasons may well have rendered other applications invalid. In recent years, however, Congress has been in receipt of a number of petitions from various States requesting the call of a convention to amend the Constitution limiting the power of the Federal Government over the taxation of income. The problem of constitutional conventions is a matter of serious concern to the House Committee on the Judiciary since rule XXII and rule XI clause 12(e) of the Rules of the House of Representatives direct, among other things, that applications for conventions be referred to this committee for appropriate action. Unfortunately, there is no statutory authority to guide this committee or the Congress in classifying applications or in counting them, nor is there any statutory guidance for the calling of a convention. The instant document was prepared by Mr. Cyril F. Brickfield and brings up to date the various tables contained in his doctoral thesis entitled, "Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention." In addition, he has included a separate table setting forth the State applications calling for a convention, which were received in the 85th Congress. There is also included a summary, taken from his doctoral dissertation, which discusses the legal as well as practical problems presented by a conventional method of amendment and among other things suggests means to dispose of these problems. Of course the views expressed in the summary, and the conclusions reached therein, are those of Mr. Bickfield and do not necessarily represent the views of any of the members of the committee. The material, however, in addition to detailing the history of the State applications, forms a permanent record of the applications which have been received over the years and, in particular, during the 85th Congress. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman. ARTICLE V (Amending clause) of United States Constitution 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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of transmittal__ Article V, United States Constitution, text.. Summary of problems relating to a Federal constitutional convention _ Validity of State applications. Control of constitutional conventions. Time limitations on the submission of State applications.. Ratification or rejection Applications to limit Federal taxing power_. Conclusions and recommendations_ Analysis of draft bills setting up procedures for constitutional con- Draft bills setting up procedures for constitutional conventions__ APPENDIX Table 1. State applications to Congress to call conventions to propose constitutional amendments (1787-1957). Table 2. State applications to Congress for constitutional conventions, listed by subject matter. Table 3. Štate applications to Congress seeking convention to limit Federal income taxing powers. Table 4. Present status of State applications submitted requesting a con- Table 5. Chronological sequence of the actions of State legislators relating Table 7. State constitutional conventions_ Table 8. State applications received in 85th Cong. asking Congress to 37 38 V |