Welcome to the Article V Library

Article V of the Constitution, and the amendment process it sets forth, is a fascinating area of study for legal scholars. Unfortunately, researchers often experience a great deal of frustration when delving into Article V topics because of difficulties in accessing even relatively recent source material. Many documents are available in differing versions, with different citations. Congress maintains no consistent records* and has no standard procedures for handling state convention applications. Large portions of those documents are often not found in the common database services used by researchers. While collections have been made, articles written, and reprints published, each one to date has included errors and omissions that have perplexed and exasperated later generations of researchers. To say that many wild geese have been pursued to exhaustion is a vast understatement. In addition, the end product of most researchers' work is necessarily limited in length and scope, so that the complete body of useful information gathered never makes it into print.

The Article V Library was started so that researchers could benefit from the notes and research trails already explored by previous generations. The goal is to have copies of all original source materials made available electronically, with accurate citations, research notes, and searchable by full text. We intend to do what Congress has failed to do: Maintain a complete and public index of all state Article V applications and related documents. We hope that you find it useful.

Remember, Congress has no rules in place for dealing with state convention applications which is perversely logical since Congress never expects to need such rules.  Congressman Larry  Craig of Idaho made a parliamentary inquiry on this question in 1984 after placing into the record 32 state Article V convention applications, to which the chair responded there was no applicable rule to deal with state Article V applications.  130 Cong. Rec. 17361-62 (1984). This situation was summarized aptly by Justice Scalia: "[Congress] likes the existing confusion, because that deters resort to the convention process. It does not want amending power to be anywhere but in its own hands."

If you have any comments, or wish to suggest any material to be added, please feel free to use the contact form.

** A note on that ambiguous 1832 South Carolina resolution.

** A note on that ambiguous 2004 South Carolina repeal resolution.