The 1992 law that regulates an Article V Convention sets a single-subject standard and lays down rules for the calling and conducting of such a convention.
Before you post such total and utter nonsense on Free Republic, please educate yourself by reading ”A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution”, an essay vetted by a constitutional lawyer to make sure I got all the facts straight.
I hate to disagree with Publius or to correct his information but in this case I am forced to do so. After all, I owe him a great debt of thanks for it was he that spent nearly two years editing what has come to be known as the “overlength brief” for the original Walker v United States lawsuit via email and which many in the legal community have since stated is the most complete, detailed legal work on a particular legal subject they have ever read.
He states my lawsuit in 2000 was thrown out by Judge Coughenor. That is true but what he fails to note was that the judge threw the case out AFTER making a ruling that a convention was under the political question doctrine thus giving Congress a choice as to whether or not to call a convention when mandated by the Constitution to do so. In short, a veto. This issue was then taken up again the my more well known lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (2004) which was, unlike the original Walker lawsuit, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
While the court did not review the case, nevertheless the government was forced by the Supreme Court rules into admitting the following. This admission was made by the official attorney of record for the members of Congress. The lawsuit can be studied for those interested at FAQ 9.1 www.foavc.org. The admissions included: a convention call is peremptory, that a sufficient number of applications exist to cause a convention call; that a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions (such as when the application was submitted or the issue or issues it may contain); that to refuse to obey the Constitution was a criminal violation of oath of office on the part of the members of Congress.
Obviously therefore Publius’ statement regarding a 1992 law is incorrect. The fact is that while a law was considered by Congress in this year, it was not passed by the House and thus did not become law. Clearly if such a law had existed the attorney of record, the courts and so one would have referred to it in their court responses. No such reference was made. Therefore the only official standard for the basis of a convention call at this time is the admission made by the attorney of record, who by the way was the Solicitor General of the United States, made in Walker v Members of Congress.
Also I would point out that Congressman Billybob recently came out in favor of a convention call. If such a law had existed I’m sure he, the states as well as everyone else concerned with the issue would be referring incessantly to it.
Moreover the courts have precluded such a law ever being written in that in 1790 the courts made it clear the president shall have nothing to do with the amendment process. Without the president, Congress cannot pass legislation. They can pass a non-binding resolution, but not legislation. Further, any such legislation if it were passed must, under the terms of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause apply equally to Congress as well as the convention meaning if a convention can be limited to a single amendment proposal (despite the fact the Constitution clearly allows for the proposal of amendments) then Congress is equally limited.
I suggest all interested to to the Friends of the Article V Convention website www.foavc.org. There you can read the over 700 applications by the states for a convention. You can read the FAQ section discussing various aspects of the convention and you can become part of an ever growing movement to cause Congress to obey the Constitution where it clearly has refused to do.