united-states constitutional-law us-constitution
How Do States [Arizona] Amend the Federal Constitution?
<p>How do states (specifically Arizona) amend the United States federal constitution? How do states amend the federal constitution without permission/cooperation from the US federal congress? What is the process in Arizona for amending the federal constitution (with and without federal congress approval)? Are there any statutes or mentions in the Arizona state constitution that details the process that Arizona has for amending the federal constitution?</p>
<p>Bypassing federal congress could be really useful in areas of politics like congressional term limits, reducing federal taxes (allowing states to tax more), states having more land (Arizona/Nevada/New Mexico/Western United States barely have state land), reducing federal government control and getting state legislature representation back in the federal senate.</p>
<p>EDIT: I know that Arizona cannot amend the federal constitution by itself, but how does Arizona become the first, or one of the states? What is the process to become one of the states to try to amend the constitution, without federal congress?</p>

<p>No state can amend the US Constitution by itself.</p>
<p>Technically, an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed a constitutional convention that is called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures (though this is has never happened; all 27 amendments have been proposed by the Federal Congress, which is the alternative path). This can be done without any kind of Federal approval what so ever.</p>
<p>After proposal, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.</p>
<p>EDIT: Regarding how to &quot;get a convention started&quot;: This hasn't been tested, since a non-Congressional amendment has not, to my knowledge, been attempted, but I would imagine a Convention would be called if 2/3rds of the states submitted requests to Congress (which would probably either be a law or a joint-resolution, which is like a law without executive approval, but the form would probably be governed by each state's respective Constitution).</p>
<p>Alternatively, it may be sufficient for state legislatures to designate delegates who meet up somewhere (as that is essentially what happened with the Constitutional Congress, i.e. the delegates who met and drafted the US Federal Constitution).</p>
<p>A point has been raised in another answer that there may be an issue; however, I'm not convinced of this being a bar to a Convention. The delegates at the Constitutional Congress were original chosen to discuss changes to the Articles of Confederation, but wound up throwing the whole thing out and starting from scratch instead.</p>
<p>Therefore, I do not see calls for a convention with differing but related objectives to be a problem; the whole point of a Convention in the Constitutional Amendment process is to discuss and compromise; otherwise, why require it before skipping to the 3/4ths of states ratifying, if the 2/3rds of states already have to agree on exactly what is being proposed before sending delegates.</p>
