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).
I ask you to read beyond the first portion of my post.
You did not answer my question, “where it was determined that applications must “bear on the same subject matter?”
For counting purposes, an application is an application, no matter the reason.
I've posed this question before. What possible constitutional topic could not be characterized as relating to the power distribution between the states and the federal government?
A subject so broad as to include everything would not and should not be considered a single topic.