Talk:Article Five of the United States Constitution

I see no reason why Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution should not be merged with this page. The two pages simply appear to be saying the same thing twice in different pages, and it would be easier and more logical if they were combined into one page. - Terraxos, 23:33

Better to eliminate the excess from Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution than add so much information that has little relevence to Article Five. The failed attempts are discinct enough to warrant their own space. --N Prado

I agree with N Prado-- eliminate the amendment procedure stuff from Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution and vice-versa, but leave as two separate articles. QuixoticKate 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on merge. Keep Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution as its own entry. The amendment procedure stuff should be abbreviated or eliminated. There should be more info about the six proposed amendments that passed congress but failed with the states. There should be info about at least some of the bills proposed by congress that failed to pass. There could also be info about grassroots pushes for amendments that were unsuccessful in even getting a member of congress to propose them, if notable enough. Schizombie 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

I'm at a loss trying to decipher this sentence, if someone could clean it up: "On the questionable assumption that only state requests addressing the same possible amendment are to be counted by Congress, which is not stated in Article V, the requisite number of states never made such a request although two proposals have come just two states shy of the required number." Thanks.

The meaning is that there is nothing in the article that says the applications of 2/3 of the states to call a council all have to be for a specific amendment. So in theory, even if the applications are made 50, 100, or more years apart from each other, for totally different reasons, when 2/3 of the states have made them, a council should be called. This is obviously not how anyone has ever seriously interpreted the article, and this "questionable assumption" is the POV probably of some kind of strict constructionalist or otherwise fringe political thinker.