With that as background, I sincerely ask from where it was determined that applications must "bear on the same subject matter."
In Federalist 85, Hamilton wrote " . . . national rulers, whenever nine states concur, will have no option on the subject. By the fifth Article of the Constitution, the Congress will be obliged on the application of two thirds of the States, to call a convention for proposing amendments . . . " "The words of this Article are preremptory. The Congress shall call a convention. Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body." Oh.
Thus, there is no single topic requirement.
Michael Farris of COS was on C-Span a couple weeks ago. He said the states have sent over 400 applications to congress. Where the call to convention?
For a sense of the Framers' thoughts on the frequency of Article V conventions, see Federalist 43. "It (Article V) guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover, equally enables the general and the state governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other."
IOW, state amendment conventions were not reserved strictly for emergencies, Black Swan events, or an Obama. Article V is merely the acknowledgment of the right of the Sovereign People to continually correct any errors of any kind.
IMHO, and with history as our guide, congress WILL NEVER CALL A CONVENTION.
It is therefore the duty of the states to just do it. Exercise a societal and constitutional responsibility; meet in convention to turn back tyranny.
Well, for openers, if state applications weren't on the same subject matter, then they could not be aggregated for the purpose of establishing the 34-state quorum necessary to establishing an Article V COS.
An Article V COS, in order to demand Congressional action as to the recognition of states' invoking the constitutional "call," must recognize the similarity — "the same subject matter" — of the respective state applications ("complaints"). If the several states are applying on the basis of, say, repeal of the seventeenth amendment and related jurisprudence, then the Convention cannot instantly go off this charter into other territory, for example, federal jurisdiction over state lands.
I understand that the subject matter being proposed by the states so far, deals with the distribution of power between the national government and the states. Any topic relating to that issue would be fair game at the COS.
But any other topic would be extraneous, and thus ineligible, for action by this particular COS, if actually seated.
The "same subject matter" requirement seems critical to the acknowledgment, by Congress, that a valid Article V COS is in the offing, which in turn depends on the uniformity of state complaints regarding the "subject matter" to be considered for redress in the COS.
There is no mandated "single topic requirement."
But prudence dictates that to put a smorgasbord of citizen complaint before a COS would be an exercise in futility. Rather, it is best, on both prudential and logical grounds, to limit the scope of the COS. Especially in light of the fact that state applications are deemed qualifying, only if they all deal with the same subject matter. Otherwise, they don't get tallied up with other states' applications, so to meet the 34-state test.
Under the proposed ALEC rules, I do not at all fear a "runaway convention." BECAUSE such a convention would be bound to the language of the applications of the petitioning states.
Distinction here: There is "application" language; and there is "called" language. "Called" language deals with the actual subject matter of the Convention, as summarized in states' qualifying applications. "Application" language deals with objects of individual states which motivate their application for a COS. My understanding is, if there is a conflict between "application" and "called" language, the COS must give priority to the latter. At least, that would seem to be the case, under the recently disseminated ALEC rules....
FWIW, Jacquerie. We'll just have to see how matters proceed, in time.
But I, an American citizen, place confidence and hope that an Article V COS can address the problems which beset us, by restoring the original fundamental balance contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution, as between the power of the national government, and the power of the several States (guaranteed under the 10th Amendment).
Absolutely TRUE; but to me, this truthful observation seems qualified by two things: (1) the Sovereign People do not act directly, but through the mediation of their States; (2) They cannot act at all, if their States do not make application to Congress for an Article V COS for the Purpose of Proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Article V elucidates the constitutional manner in which this must be done. Absent the congressional CALL, it isn't going to get done.
You wrote,
IMHO, and with history as our guide, congress WILL NEVER CALL A CONVENTION.... It is therefore the duty of the states to just do it. Exercise a societal and constitutional responsibility; meet in convention to turn back tyranny.Well, certainly Congress has never issued an Article V COS CALL, at least not so far.
Meanwhile, we have Michael Farris pointing out that, so far in our history, there have been over 400 State Applications to Congress to CALL an Article V COS. These Applications have been all over the "subject matter" of the sovereign people's concerns, which have varied over time. The evident fact remains that State applications on different subject matter will not be aggregated for the purpose of establishing the 34-state threshold necessary to force Congress into issuing the CALL, without which any contemplated convention would have zero constitutional basis, standing, or effect.
"Aggregation" rules are not part of the facial text of Article V. But it seems to me the need for same is implied, and essential, on logical and common-sense grounds. In what other way can we find out whether the 34-state threshold has been met?
I propose a thought experiment, actually two.
The first would be something along the lines that you might warm to: Get 34 States to "call on" Congress to issue its congressional CALL to convene an Article V COS for the purpose of proposing amendments on the basis that this convention as contemplated would be a wide-ranging, general-purpose convention not limited to any particular subject matter going in. It seems to me they still have to get over the aggregation bar in some way. Maybe they could do that, by adopting virtually identical language in their Applications. Maybe something like, "This State is applying for an open COS not limited as to subject matter." If 34 States all said the same thing in their Applications, even if the Clerk of Congress and National Archivist are total morons, assuming they can read, they must recognize that identical language is identical language. If 34 States are using identical language, then how can Congress fail to aggregate them? Upshot: Congress "shall" issue its CALL. Possibly, this could work.
Or second, how about lobbying, urging our state representatives to make Application to Congress for a COS dedicated to the single topic of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment? That situation is a lot more limited and straightforward than a "general purpose" convention. Get 34 States to apply specifically on the the narrow-focus matter of repeal of the Seventeenth, using same language, and Congress must issue its CALL. "Same language" should ensure that all such Applications qualify for aggregation. The language of any State's Application itself might specify that its application shall be aggregated with the applications of all other States on the topic of repeal of the Seventeenth.
What would happen, under these two scenarios? It would be gratifying to find out.
In conclusion, though Article V does not require a COS to confine its scope to a "single topic," there has to be some commonality of interest of the States that goes beyond purely regional or local problems, and it is in their Applications that the States make this known.
Just some thoughts, FWTW. I'm struggling through this the same as you are, dear Jacquerie. Thank you ever so much for sharing your thoughts.