Live at the National Constitution Center Amending the Constitution and the Article V Project
Dec 16, 2025
Join constitutional scholars Gerard Magliocca, Michael Rappaport, Stephen E. Sachs, and Sanford Levinson as they unpack the complexities of Article V. Magliocca reveals fears around limited conventions, while Rappaport discusses the importance and potential pitfalls of the convention amendment method. Sachs tackles interpretive puzzles and historical precedents, contrasting them with Levinson's call for a new constitutional convention to reflect on pressing national issues. Together, they navigate past traditions and future reforms in a lively conversation.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Practical Limits On Runaway Conventions
- Gerard Magliocca argues that while a convention could theoretically exceed its mandate, practical pressures—transparency, elections, and ratification hurdles—make runaway conventions unlikely.
- He emphasizes that delegates would likely be elected and constrained by public scrutiny and ratification risks.
1787 Convention Exceeded Its Mandate
- Gerard Magliocca recounts that the 1787 convention exceeded its mandate to amend the Articles and instead drafted a new Constitution.
- He uses this founding example to explain historical fears about conventions overrunning their charge.
Convention Method Is Essential But Broken
- Michael Rappaport contends the convention method is essential but broken because fear of a runaway convention blocks state-led amendments.
- He argues original meaning supports limited conventions and views runaway acts as ultra vires and legally void.