.« V5! :1  r‘ “" '''‘‘,.'11. v‘ ‘ -_ ‘ 
— r  ,e“""t'Y.?.  :3 ‘ 7-”. 4‘ 7!.
' ‘ ‘SK k.(.-;,_'\‘_ :5‘:  j ‘.-,  .‘ ». ‘
V « ' 1 ’ ., . _ _ - :'
. . »~—‘.<C\_.:._;_.’§ 6.‘   I 
‘ L .1 ., . . . ,v_ 5‘ y.
L‘ \_ ""
. ' -
L

gov 161989

  

Issue Brief  J.

j
T
T

 

CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH %
SERVICE   ‘  / ~

TH E LIBRARY

iversnt issouri u

s»     mwiin Hflu°‘ii

O10-WHO

a

«mm «

3940 5

                                                         

gm uu

 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS: POLITICAL AND LEGAL QUESTIONS

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB80062

AUTHOR:
David C. Huckabee
Government Division
Meredith McCoy

American Law Division

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DATE ORIGINATED O5/O5/80
DATE UPDATED 10/25/82

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700

1025

CRS- 1} _ IB80062. UPDATE-lO/25/82

ISSUE DEFINITION

In the l980s, the Nation may be faced with its first constitutional
convention since l787. Applications have been passed by 31 of the necessary
34 State legislatures to convene a convention to propose an amendment
limiting deficit spending, and by l9 States for an amendment prohibiting
abortion. Because this process for amending the Constitution has never been
used, several unresolved legal and policy questions arise governing the
convening and the authority of such a convention. In the 97th Congress,
several bills have been introduced that establish procedures for calling a
convention.

BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS

Article V-of the U.S. Constitution establishes the procedures by which the
Constitution may be amended. The process can be conveniently divided into
two phases: procedures relating to the proposal of" constitutional
amendments, and procedures pertaining to the ratification of proposed
amendments.

The article provides two methods for the proposing of amendments. The

first permits Congress to propose amendments "whenever two—thirds of both
Houses shall deem it necessary." All the amendments now part of 2

Constitution originated in this manner. The second method is explained in
the language, "on the application of the legislatures of two—thirds [34] of
the several States [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing
amendments," and has never been invoked successfully. '

Article V specifies that, once proposed, amendments are to be ratified
either by the legislatures or special conventions of three—fourths of the
States before becoming part of the Constitution. The method of ratification,
by State convention or State legislature, is within Congress‘ power to choose
according to the dictates of Article V, whether the amendment is proposed by
the Congress or a convention. _

Thus, a convention called pursuant to Article V does not have the power to
amend the Constitution but, rather, to propose amendments. Any amendment or
amendments proposed by such .a convention still need to be ratified by
three-fourths (38) of the States in the same manner as amendments proposed by
the Congress.

Historical Overview of the Convention Issue

Controversy over the convention alternative for proposing amendments is
not a new phenomenom. In the period since l789, State legislatures have
submitted more than 400 applications for a convention to consider amendments
relating to a wide variety of subjects. In recent years, legislatures have
applied to Congress for a convention more often than in the past. During e
174-year period from 1789 to 1963, Congress received approximately QJO
applications requesting a convention. In the 19 years since, more than l5O
such applications have been received.

During the 94th, 95th, and 96th Congresses, in addition to the subjects of

CRS—,2~». . 'EIB8oO62- UPDATE~lO/25/82*

the budget and abortion, the issue of compulsory school assignment (busing)
prompted l3°States to apply, and a movement to allow prayer in the public
schools brought five such applications.

The constitutional convention issue received considerable attention in the
late l960s and early l970s, owing largely to the efforts by Senator Everett
Dirksen (R.—Ill.). He wanted to convene a convention in order to amend the
Constitution to allow one house of a State legislature to be apportioned by %
means other than population. As a result of this campaign, Senator Sam
Ervin, Jr. (D.-N.C.), introduced in l967 (the 90th Congress) a
Constitutional Convention Procedures Act (S. 2307). This bill was to provide
in law the steps to be taken by the Congress in the event that applications
were received from the necessary two—thirds of the States. This measure and
a similar bill (S. 623) introduced in the 91st Congress were considered by
the Senate Judiciary Committee, but were not reported to the floor.

Citing the need for "orderly procedures" to "avoid the possibility of (a
runaway convention and a constitutional crisis," Senator Ervin introduced 8.
2l5 in 1971 (92d Congress). The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 84~O,
but the House did not consider the measure on the floor. A similar bill, S.
l272, passed the Senate by a voice vote in 1973 during the 93rd Congress but,
again, it was not considered on the House floor.

\

These 92d and 93d Congress bills, among other things: (1) specified the
forms of State applications acceptable to Congress; (2) »provided that the
applications would remain in effect for seven years; (3) allowed States to
rescind applications; (4) limited the jurisdiction of any convention to the
subject for which it was called; (5) set forth administrative procedures for
convening a convention, such as the method of selecting delegates and the
type of vote required to propose an amendment; and (6) permitted Congress to
reject a disfavored convention proposal in lieu of submitting it to the
States for ratification.

In the 94th and 95th Congresses a number of bills were introduced seeking
to set similar standards. Hearings were held on the 95th Congress Senate
bills, 8. 3, S. 520 (Helms) and S. 1710 (Hatch) in 1979. No further action
was taken.

Now in 1982 all of the questions concerning a possible constitutional
convention are pertinent because 31 of the necessary 34 States have adopted
resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to consider an amendment
to require a balanced Federal budget. In addition, two Senate bills to
establish convention procedures, S. 600 (Helms) and S. 817 (Hatch) have been

’referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. H.R. 353 (Hyde) has been

referred t0 the HOUSE Judiciary Committee.

The Balanced Budget Convention Drive

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU), a Washington-based lobby group
claiming a membership of lO0,000, has been identified with a campaign that
sparked considerable interest in State legislatures to adopt resolutions to
Congress about a proposed amendment to limit the power of the Federal
Government to incur budget deficits. The NTU is still lobbying for the
proposal in the State legislatures.

In March l979, a coalition of labor, religious, business, and other
interests met to organize a group called Citizens for the Constitution. This

,.cRs—.3,_ -IB8OO82.HUPDATE~lQ/25/82:

group, under the leadership of the Lieutenant Governor of Massachuset ,
Thomas P. O'Neill III, helped coordinate the efforts of those persons WHO
opposed efforts to convene a constitutional convention during 1979.

The latter organization opened an office in Washington and actively
lobbied in many of the States that were considering resolutions to apply to
Congress for a budget convention. Citizens for the Constitution is now an
informal organization of business and labor groups. Members of these groups
have actively lobbied against a convention in 1981.

Another organization, the Committee to Preserve the Constitution, was
founded in New York in 1979. This group continues to lobby against a
convention as does another new group, People for the Constitution,t that was
established in Washington State in 1981.

Although no new States applied for a convention in 1981, two "close calls"
occurred. Both the Missouri and Washington legislatures ‘considered budget
convention applications that passed both houses. These resolutions died at
the end of each State's legislative session because the houses could not
agree on the wording for the convention request.

In three States in 1981 (Ohio, West Virginia, and Rhode Island),
resolutions were adopted by one house of the legislatures.

Several "close calls" occurred in 1982. A balanced budget resolution
passed the Kentucky Senate in February 1982 but failed to be adopted by the
House. Similar resolutions passed the Washington House (March 1982), and 9
Missouri Senate (March 1982).

The 31 States which have passed resolutions requesting a constitutional
convention about Federal spending are: Alabama, Alaska Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. The
legislatures of California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Montana have adopted
resolutions requesting that Congress propose a deficit spending amendment,
but not asking for a constitutional convention.

The Right-To-Life Constitutional Convention Drive

There iS another effort being made in the States t0 convene a
constitutional convention. Nineteen States--Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,

Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,’

Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah--have asked for a convention to propose an
amendment which would prohibit abortions.

The National Right-to-Life Committee, an interest group with affiliates
nationwide, adopted a resolution in June 1978 encouraging and supporting all
methods of obtaining a right-to-life constitutional amendment. Previously,

the Committee had not endorsed the convention method and a group cal” d-

Americans for a Constitutional Convention, Inc. (now the Ad Hoc Committee in
Defense of Life) had been the chief coordinator of the drive for the
anti-abortion convention. ’ :

Organized opposition t0 the right-to-life constitutional amendment

,CRS- 4 . lB8OQ62 .UPDATE<lO/25/82?

includes the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the Religious
Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), and Planned Parenthood.

POLITICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES--THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The steps required to convene an Article V convention and the rules which
would govern it are not set out in the Constitution or statutory law. The
questions raised by these unanswered issues are set out below. A separate
CRS Report, Constitutional Conventions: Political and Legal Issues (Report
No. 81-135). provides further information on these questions. Copies of the
report may be obtained by requesting it through the CRS Inquiry Unit at
287-5700.

(1) What is the role of Congress with respect to calling
a convention?

(2) What constitutes a valid application for a convention?
((3) what is the life-span of an application?i

(4) May a legislature withdraw its application for a
convention?

(5) The Constitution refers to the receipt of applications
for a convention from two-thirds of the States. If
over 400 applications have been received
since 1789, why have we not had a convention?

(6) May applications be conditional?
(7) Must they be identical?

(8) What kind of scenario can be anticipated to show
the likely steps which will be taken if applications
are received from 34 States?

(9) Does the Congress fulfill its constitutional duty
under Article V, after receipt of valid applications
from two-thirds of the States, by proposing its
own substitute amendment?

(10) Can a constitutional convention be limited to the
consideration of a single issue?

(ll) If a convention is limitable, who may do the limiting?
The Congress? The States? Or both?

(12) If the Congress can limit the subject of a convention,
how strict may that limitation be?

(13) If a convention should go beyond a limitation imposed
by the Congress or the States, are there any remedies
available?

(14) Is the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of disputes
over the proper implementation of Article V?

..cRs.— 5  1 :58-0062 ._ _UPD~'A'I‘E_-lO_./~25/8.2.  

(15) who would have standing in a court of law to litigate any
of these issues?

(16) What method of representation to a convention should
be adopted?

(17) Can a Member of Congress be a delegate to a convention?

(18) Can the Congress set the vote required by the convention
to propose an amendment?

(19) Is a convention the creature of the Congress, the States,
or the "people"? ‘

LEGISLATION

H.R. 353 (Hyde)

Similar to S. 600, with the exceptions that a different procedure is
provided for transmitting proposed amendments through the General Services
Administration (GSA), and the vote required in the convention to propose an
amendment is set at two-thirds of the delegates. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981;
referred to Committee on the Judiciary..

S. 600 (Helms)

Provides procedures for convening a constitutional convention. Sets
standards for State applications; requires certain record keeping procedures
in Congress; gives States authority to rescind applications and ratifications
of amendments; provides that delegates shall be selected from congressional
districts with two delegates selected at-large from each State; limits
jurisdiction of the convention to the issue for which the convention is
called; sets the vote to propose an (amendment in the convention at a
majority; establishes a 7-year limit for effectiveness of applications; and
authorizes funding for the convention's expenses. Introduced Feb. 27, 1981;
referred to Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 817 (Hatch)

Different from S. 600 in that it allows the States to establish their own
procedures for making applications for a convention; permits the States to
establish their own methods for selection of delegates; excludes Members of
Congress from serving as delegates; permits the convention to draw up its own
rules of procedure; prohibits the appropriation of Federal funds for payment
of expenses; and provides for judicial review, thus rejecting the view that
the "political question" doctrine makes Congress the sole interpreter of
matters deriving from Article V. Introduced Mar. 26, 1981; referred to
Committee on the Judiciary. Referred to Subcommittee; on the Constitution
Apr. 9, 1981; reported to full committee without amendment ‘Nov. 3, 1981.
Committee markup session held Dec. 8, 1981. “

S.Res. 41 (Melcher)

Amends the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide that applications.

received in the Senate by States requesting a convention to amend the
Constitution be printed in their entirety in the Congressional Record.

.CRS*.6'-, IBSQOSZ -UPDATEilO/25/82

Directs the Committee on the Judiciary to print a list of such applications
in the Record biannually, including the total number of applications received
on a given subject matter. Introduced Jan. 27, 1981; referred to Committee
on Rules and Administration.

HEARINGS

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Budget. Balancing the
budget., Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Mar. 5, 1979.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 114 p.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee
on the Constitution. Constitutional convention procedures.
Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session, on S. 3, S. 520, and
S. 1710. Nov. 29, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1980. 1372 p.

--—-- Proposed constitutional amendments to require a balanced
budget. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on S.J.Res.
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, ll, 13, 16, 18, 36, 45, 46, 56, 76, 86,
and 93. Mar. 12, May 23, Oct. 4 and 11, Nov. 1, 1979.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 621 p.

—-—-— Legislative approaches to limiting Federal spending.
Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Jan. 24-25, 1980.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 207 p.

—---- Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Balancing the
budget. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session." Sept. 23,
Oct. 7, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975,
222 p. .

-—-—— Taxes on income, inheritances, and gifts. Hearing, 83rd Congress,
2d session, on S.J.Res. 23, proposing an amendment to
the Constitution relative to taxes on income, inheritances,
and gifts. Apr. 27, 1954. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1954. 232 p.

-—-—— Subcommittee on Separation of Powers. S. 2307, Federal
constitutional convention. Hearings, 90th Congress,
lst session, on S. 2307, a bill to provide procedures for
calling constitutional conventions. Oct. 30 and 31, 1967.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967. 242 p.

-—-—— Federal constitutional convention procedures. Hearing,
93rd Congress, lst session. Apr. 12, 1973. Washington,
on S. 1272. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
22 p.

REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Problems
relating to a Federal constitutional convention. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1957. 112 p. '2
At head of title: 85th Congress, 1st se sion. Committee
print. 4

CR8? 7 - ‘ IB8OO62- UPDATErlO/25/82_

Publication of a doctoral dissertation by Cyril F.
Brickfield which was submitted to the George Washington
University School of Law.

—---- State applications asking Congress to call a Federal

constitutional convention. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., l959. 38 p.
At head of title: 86th Congress, lst session. House

committee print.

~—--- State applications asking Congress to call a Federal
constitutional convention, 87th Congress. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., l96l. 40 p.
At head of title: 87th Congress, lst session. House
committee print.
Study by Cyril F. Brickfield updates his l957 study
noted above.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Federal
Constitutional Procedures Act; report, together with separate
views, to accompany S. 215. ywashington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1971. 19 p. (92d Congress, lst session. Senate.

Report no. 92-336) '

---—- Federal Constitutional Procedures Act; report, together
with additional views, to accompany S. 1272. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 20 p. (93d Congress,
lst session. Senate. Report no. 93=293)

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

This chronology is divided into two sections. The first deals with
general developments relating to the convention issue, and the second tracks
the State applications for a convention as they have been received by the
Congress.

Section I. General Developments

03/18/82 -- Missouri Senate passes S.Con.Res. l4 for a budget
convention.

O3/O3/82 -- Washington House passes H.J.M. l, by a vote of
51-47 for a budget convention.

O2/23/82 -— Kentucky Senate passes S.Con.Res. 20, for a budget
convention by a vote of 25-ll.

Ol/l8/82 -- Alaska becomes thirty-first State to adopt a
balanced budget convention application.

O5/Ol/81 -- Washington and Missouri legislatures adjourn without
  completing action on their budget convention applications.

O3/24/81 -- Conferees appointed in Missouri legislature on S.C.R.
4 for a budget convention. This measure has passed both
Houses in differing forms.

03/06/81

02/16/81
02/10/81
04/29/80
04/08/80
03/03/80
01/30/80
01/28/80

01/25/80

12/19/79

12/29/79

12/01/79

07/06/79

04/26/79

04/20/79

CRS— 8 IB80062 UPDATE-10/25/82
Washington Senate passes S.J.M. 105 for a balanced
budget convention; The House previously passed

H.J.M. 1, requesting budget convention that was

worded slightly differently. The Legislature adjourns
Apr. 26, 1981.

S.C.R. 5 passed west Virginia Senate. Referred to

House Rules Committee. 

Ohio Senate passed S.J.R. 1 for a balanced budget
convention. There has been no House action.

Alabama legislature becomes the 19th State to adopt a
right-to-life convention application.

Oklahoma legislature becomes 18th State to adopt
a right-to-life convention application.

Idaho legislature becomes the 17th State to adopt
a right-to-life convention application.

Tennessee legislature becomes the 16th State to
adopt a right-to-life convention application with
House approval of S.J.Res. 23 by a vote of 59-32,
with one absention.

west Virginia Senate approves a budget convention
application resolution (S.Con.Res. 4) by a vote of
20-14.

Kentucky Senate approves a budget convention
application resolution (S.Con.Res. 9) by a vote
of 26-1.

Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution approves a
proposed constitutional amendment which would limit
Federal spending, allowing deficit spending only when
authorized by a vote of three—fifths of each House.

Hearing held by Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution
on the subject of constitutional convention
procedures.

Hearing held by Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution
on the subject of proposed amendments to balance the
budget. Hearings were also held on Mar. 12, May 23,
and Oct. 4, 1979. 2 '

The New York Times reports that although the balanced
budget convention drive appears to be over this

year, proponents will concentrate on Maine,
Minnesota, Kentucky, and Rhode Island in early 1980.

New Hampshire becomes 30th State to request a
constitutional convention on the budget with the State
Senate approval of an application by a vote of 16-7.

NEW Hampshire HOUSE approves 8. budget convention

83/23/79

03/17/79

03/16/79

03/00/79

02/25/79

02/22/79

02/09/79

02/08/79

02/04/79

01/30/79
01/25/79

Ol/O9/79

Sectipn II.

CRS- 9 IB80062 UPDATE-lO/25/82

application by a vote of 178-161.

Montana Senate rejects budget convention application
by a vote of 31-18.

Under leadership of Massachusetts Lieutenant

Governor Thomas P. O'Neill III, a group called the
Citizens for the Constitution is formed to oppose the
convening of a constitutional convention.

Debt limit increase approved in the U.S. House of
Representatives, after defeat of an amendment (by a 20l=l99
procedural vote) which would have permitted future increases
in the debt ceiling only if the Federal budget were in
balance.

Gallup survey for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
reports 76% of those responding favor a constitutional
amendment to limit Federal spending and taxes.

California Assembly, by a vote of 63-6, adopts a
resolution requesting Congress to amend the

Constitution to balance the budget, but does not

include language calling for a constitutional convention.

California State Assembly's Ways and Means Committee
defeats budget convention application proposal by a
vote of 12-8.

Iowa House adopts resolution applying for a balanced
budget constitutional convention.

Harris poll shows that 69% of sample favor major
cutbacks in Federal spending, and same percentage
favors a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

Republican Party leaders meeting in Easton, Md.
reported as rejecting a resolution endorsing a
constitutional amendment to require a balanced

budget in favor of a proposal to call for lower taxes
and the imposition of spending limits on the Federal
Government.

National Tax Limitation Committee issues an amendment
proposal, authored in part by Milton Friedman, to
limit Federal spending.

California Senate approves a resolution requesting
a constitutional convention relating to the budget
by a vote of 24-14.

California Governor Edmund G. Brown calls for a
constitutional amendment to require a balanced
Federal budget, endorsing a constitutional convention
if one is necessary to achieve such an amendment.

State Applications Received by the Congress

Note:

CRS—lO IB80062 UPDATE—lO/25/82
Either the text or a summary of each State
application appears in the Congressional
Record (CR). Page numbers are cited as follows: CR/H2301-H2304
(v. l26). Senate citations generally include the text of the

application.

O3/29/82 -- Alaska legislature application received relating to

Referred to Senate
128).

balanced budget amendment.
Judiciary Committee. CR/S2917 (V.

O2/O3/82 -~ Alaska legislature application received relating

to convening a convention to propose an amendment
to balance the budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H200 (v. 128).

09/09/81 -~ Alabama legislature application received relating

to making Federal judgeships elective offices.
Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H6072 (v. 127).

05/15/80 -- Arizona Legislature application received relating to

convening a convention to propose an amendment which
would prevent the Federal Government from threatening
to withold Federal funds to force States to act in
certain ways. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S5467 (v. 126).

05/09/80 -- Alabama Legislature application received relating

to a convention tO PFOPOSG a right-to-life amendment.

Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. CR/S5095 (v. 126).

05/02/80 -~ Tennessee Legislature application received relating to a

04/29/80 --

04/24/80 --

O3/21/80 --

O3/l8/80 --

Ol/29/80 --

convention to propose a right-to-life amendment.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. CR/S4499 (V. 126).
Tennessee Legislature application received relating

to right-to-life convention. Referred to House

Judiciary Committee. CR/H3074 (v. l26).

-- Arizona Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H2245 (v. 125).

Oklahoma Legislature application received about a
convention relating to right-to—life amendment.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. CR/S4202
(V0  '

Idaho Legislature application received about a
convention relating to a right—to-life amendment.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. CR/S2804
(v. l26).

Idaho Legislature application received for a
right—to—life constitutional convention. Referred to

House Judiciary Committee. CR/H1967 (v. 126).

Nevada Legislature application received about a

01/28/80

07/19/79

07/18/79

07/17/79

06/25/79

06/22/80

06/21/79

06/18/79

06/05/79

05/31/79

05/24/79

-Senate Judiciary Committee.

CRS-ll IB80062 UPDATE=lO/25/82
Referred to

126).

convention relating to the budget.
CR/S548 (v.

Nevada Legislature application received about a
convention relating to the budget. Referred to
House Judiciary Committee. CR/H295.(v. 126).

Louisiana Legislature application received relating to
a balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S9890-S9891 (v. 125).

Louisiana Legislature application received relating to
a balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H6197 (v. 125).

Louisiana Legislature application received relating
rules and regulations adopted by administrative bodies.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. CR/S9647 (v. 125).

Louisiana Legislature application received relating
to balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H6112 (v. 125).

Iowa Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S8409-S8410 (v. 125).

Nevada Legislature application received relating to
right-to—life. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S8409 (v_ 125).

Representative Grassley inserts text of Iowa Legislature
application for a convention relating to a balanced budget.
CR/E3168 (v. 125).

Senator Jepsen inserts text of Iowa State Senate

resolution making application for a convention

relating to the budget. CR/S8182 (v. 125). (This resolution
passed in 1979.)

Iowa Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S7879 (v. 125).

Maryland Legislature application received relating
to a balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H4074 (v. 125). (This resolution was
adopted in 1975.)

Representative Smith inserts communication of a
majority of the members of the Iowa Senate stating

that if they had been able to reconsider their passage»
of their balanced budget application, they would have
done so. CR/H3982 (v. 125).

Senator Humphrey inserts New Hampshire Legislature
application for a convention. CR/S6300 (v. 125).
resolution was adopted in 1979.)

(This

05/15/79

05/15/79

05/03/79

05/01/79

04/10/79

03/22/79

03/19/79

.03/15/79

03/13/79

03/12/79

cns-12 IB80062 UPDATE-l0/25/82

New Hampshire application received relating to
a balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S6085 (V. 125).

New Hampshire application received relating to balanced
budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H3284 (V. 125).

North Dakota application received relating to a balanced
budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S5920 (V. 125).

Indiana Legislature application received relating to
a balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S5017 (V. 125). (This resolution was
adopted in 1979.)

Indiana Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H2534 (V. 125).

Arizona Legislature application received relating to
a balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S4298 (v. 125).

Oregon Legislature application received relating

to a balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S3165 (V. 125). (This resolution passed
the legislature in 1977.)

Representative Mcclory inserts Illinois Senate
resolution urging Congress to act on a balanced budget
amendment. CR/E1174 (V. 125).

Oregon Legislature application received relating

to a balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H1424 (V. 125). (This resolution passed
the legislature in 1977.)

Alabama Legislature application received relating

to the budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H1424 (V. 125). (This resolution was
adopted in 1976.)

Texas Legislature application received relating to the
budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. CR/S2869
(V. 125). Also received in House and referred to House
Judiciary Committee. CR/H1424 (V. 125). (This resolution
passed in 1977.)

Alabama Legislature application relating to budget
received. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S2610 (V. 125). (This resolution was adopted in 1976.)

Pennsylvania Legislature application received relating
to the budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S2500—S250l (V. 125). (This resolution was adopted in

03/08/79

03/07/79

03/05/79

03/01/79

CRS-l3 IBs0062

1975.)

Georgia Legislature application received relating to a
right-to—life amendment. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/Hl229 (V. l25).

Nebraska Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/Hl229 (v. l25).

Arkansas Legislature application relating to the budget
received. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S2363 (v. 125). (This resolution was adopted in l979.)

Georgia Legislature application received relating to
a right-to-life amendment. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S2363 (v. 125).)

Utah Legislature application relating to budget

received. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S2363-S2364 (v. l25)._ (This resolution was adopted in
1979.) ‘ } ' ‘ ' .
Nebraska Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S2185 (v. 125).

Utah Legislature application received relating to
a balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H1145 (v. l25).

Arkansas Legislature application relating to the
budget received. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H1068 (v. 125). (This resolution was
adopted in 1979.)

Florida Legislature application relating to the
budget received. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/Sl93O (v. 125). (This resolution,
Memorial No. 234, passed in 1976.)

Senate

Florida Legislature application relating to the

budget received. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S1930-S1931 (v. 125). (This resolution,
House Memorial No. 2081, passed in 1976.)

New Mexico Legislature application received relating
to budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S1931-S1932 (v. l25). (This resolution passed in l976.)

South Dakota Legislature application received relating
to a balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S1931 (v. 125).

Idaho Legislature application received relating to a
balanced budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committef
CR/S1932 (v. 125). ‘

UPDATE=lO/25/82-

O2/28/79 --

O2/27/79'--

O2/26/79 --

02/22/79 --

02/21/79 --

O2/O8/79 --

O2/O6/79

-was adopted in 1979.)

cns-14 IB80062 UPDATE—lO/25/82
Idaho Legislature application received relating to
budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.

CR/H1004 (v. 125). (This resolution passed in 1979.)

Florida Legislature application received relating

to a balanced budget. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee. CR/H946 (v. 125). (This resolution, House
Memorial No. 208l, passed in 1976.)

South Dakota Legislature application received
relating to a balanced budget. Referred to House
Judiciary Committee. CR/H946 (v. 125). (This
resolution passed in 1979.)

New Mexico Legislature application received relating
to budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H898 (v. 125). (This resolution passed in 1976.)

Representative Fountain inserts North Carolina
resolution relating to calling a constitutional
convention for a balanced budget. (This resolution
CR/H887 (v. 125).

Mississippi Legislature application received relating to a
right-to-life amendment. Referred to Senate Judiciary
Committee. CR/S1788 (V. 123).

Florida Legislature application received relating to

budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H830 (V. 125). (This resolution, Senate Memorial.
No. 234, passed in 1976.)

North Carolina application received relating to
budget. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H830 (v. 125).

Mississippi application received relating to a
constitutional convention regarding a right-to—life
amendment. Referred to House Judiciary Committee.
CR/H816 (v. 125).

Senator Harry F. Byrd inserts copies of applications
for a convention relating to the budget from the
following States: Alabama (1976 resolution),

Arizona (1977 Resolution), Colorado (1978 resolution),
Delaware (1975 resolution), Florida (1976 resolution),
Georgia (1976 resolution), Kansas (1978 resolution),

Louisiana (1978 resolution), Maryland (1975 resolution),

Mississippi (1975 resolution), Nebraska (1976 resolution),
New Mexico (1976 resolution), North Dakota (1975
resolution), Oklahoma (1976 resolution), Oregon (1977

resolution), Pennsylvania (1976 resolution),
South Carolina (1976 resolution), Tennessee
resolution), Texas (1977 resolution),
resolution), and Wyoming (1977 resolution).
(V. 125).

(1977
Virginia (1976
CR/S1305-S1313

"""’ NOI‘th Carolina Legislature application received relating

CRS-15 IB8QO62 UPDATE-lO/25/82

to budget. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
CR/S1123 (V. 125). (This resolution passed in 1979.) ,

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES

Constitutional Convention

American Bar Association. Special Constitutional Convention
Study Committee. Amendment of the Constitution by the
convention method under Article V. Chicago, 1974. 90 p.

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Proposals for a constitutional convention to require a
balanced Federal budget. Washington, 1979. 38 p.
(American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Legislative analysis, 96th Congress, no. 3).

Black, Charles L., Jr. Amending the Constitution: a letter to
a Congressman. Yale law journal, v. 82, Dec. 1972.
189-215. ‘ I . : 

Fisher, Louis. Confidential spending and governmental
accountability. George Washington law review, V. 47,
Jan. 1979: 347-385.

Gross, Bertram M. Unbalancing the Constitution. Nation, V. 228,
Apr. 28, 1979: 449-468. L

Kapp, Elaine S. A balanced Federal budget and constitutional
convention controversy. State government, v. 7, spring 1979:
58-64.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Calling a Federal constitutional convention by State
petition; selected references [by] Johnny Killian, updated
by Meredith McCoy [Washington] 1979. 5 p.

CRS Report 76-61A

---—- Constitutional conventions: political and legal issues; the
unanswered questions [by] Meredith McCoy and David C. Huckabee.
[Washington] June 2, 1981. 43 p.

CRS Report 81-135 GOV/A

Balanced Budget Amendment

Cohen, Richard E. Trying to kick the spending habit. National
journal, v. 11, Apr. 21, 1979: 632-636.

MacLaury, Bruce K. Proposals to limit Federal spending and balance
the budget. In Pechman, Joseph A., ed. Setting national
priorities: the 1980 budget. Washington, Brookings
Institution, 1979: 213-223.

Niskanen, William. Controlling the growth of government the
constitutional amendment approach. St. Louis, Cent r for the
Study of American Business, Washington University, 1979.

cRs~15 » IB80062 UPDATE-io/25/82

18 p. (Washington University, St.

Louis. Center for the
Study of American Business:

wittemore House series)

Shannon, John and Bruce wallin. Restraining the Federal budget:
alternative policies and strategies. Intergovernmental
perspective, v. 5, spring 1979: 8-14.

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Balancing the budget and limiting Federal spending:

a
selected bibliography [by] Felix Chin. Apr. 6, 1979.

7 p.

The balanced budget proposal:
[by] John Henderson.

CRS Mini Brief MB79229

some macroeconomic implications

Balanced budget and spending limitations:
constitutional amendments [by] Allen M.
CRS Issue Brief IB79027

proposed
Schick.

Walker, David B.

perspective.
l5-20. ’

The balanced budget movement: a political
Intergovernmental perspective, v. 5, spring 1979:

LIBRARY

OF
VVAEHINGTQN
UNlVERS‘s§'T’Y'

ST. LOUi3 - “‘v"§Cé.

._»~u.--.-:...r mgr: ‘