Replies

For counting purposes, an application is an application, no matter the reason.

That is not my understanding. I rely on Professor Natelson in this:

...Founding-Era practice, upon which the Constitution’s amendment convention was based, was to limit in advance the topic and scope of multi-government conventions. Discussions from the Founding Era reveal a universal assumption that applications would be made to promote amendments addressing prescribed problems. The first application ever issued, that of Virginia in 1788, was arguably limited as to subject, and hundreds of later applications have been limited as well. Indeed, the central purpose of the state application and convention procedure — to grant state legislatures parity with Congress in the proposal process — would be largely defeated unless those legislatures had the same power Congress does to define an amendment’s scope in advance.

It also follows from historical practice, not to mention common sense, that Congress should aggregate together towards the two-thirds threshold only those applications that address the same general topic. — Robert G. Natelson, State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters

If there is no specificity to state applications as to at least the general subject matter of concern, then why not just let the states apply, on the grounds that "there is no specific purpose of the COS in view, we're just applying for a COS to do whatever we feel like, once it is "called" by Congress, and we are there on the scene?"

If that's the case, how does one come up with a 34-state tally, sufficient to invoke a COS? I strongly doubt Congress, ever so jealous of its powers and prerogatives, would be willing to credit a 34-state tally on the basis of "we applying states will figure out what we're gonna do, once we get there."

If anything, that would be the very prescription for a "runaway convention."

And that is why I think — rightly or wrongly, you tell me — that an "application is an application," only when it has a reason, at least a generally specified reason stated in advance; it's not an application to effect constitutional amendment on the basis of "no matter the reason."

And that "reason" is discoverable by general conformity of the texts of state applications' subject matter. You get 34 states to agree in general on that "reason," then Congress MUST issue the CALL for a COS.

Other than that, it's not gonna happen.

Or at least, that is my understanding.

Jacquerie,

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires applications to bear on the same subject matter.

But your idea that Congress count all comers is a disastrous suggestion.

The States that want to adhere to the language adopted by ALEC are not required to attend any meeting, assembly or ‘convention’ driven by leftist ideologues who may move to overturn the 2nd Amendment, to nationalize the banks, to federalize local police, to remove any border restrictions on illegals and so on.

The quorum calls for 34 states. If 34 States are not willing to subscribe to the Left’s agenda, then there is no quorum, there is no convention. The Left can work to have their own convention but if there not 34 applying, Congress is not required to call it. If the Left were to take up your suggestion, and have Congress call a convention based on sufficient historical applications, then think of the disaster that would ensue. They would not be able to ratify any of their proposals but they would surely make a mockery before the public of the sheer foolishness of the whole effort; similar to amateurs performing a Shakespearean play, they would sour the public’s view of Article V.

So your reading of the Constitution leaves out the will of the States. If there are not 34 states now or previously to call a COS, there’s no convention.

Your suggestion to go over the last 200 years and count every application also requires to subtract those that have expired, those requiring renewal and the practicality of respecting a present state legislature with respect to a same state legislative application in which all the members have since passed away.

Frankly, you should be using your formidable debate skills not on this subject but on the subject of who should confirm applications, how they should be submitted, to whom they should be submitted, deadlines for acknowledgement, deadlines for possible court filings, and any other contingencies that arise should Congress ignore or be derelict in their Constitutional duty to call a COS.

We know from a report earlier this year that Congress has created some sort of ‘functionary’ to tabulate applications. I personally see this as unwarranted and intrusive. Congress should have no involvement or influence in any proceeding of an Article V meeting of States. Article V says ‘upon application’, it does not say to whom. IMO it should be a neutral party such as the National Archives to legally ‘process serve’ upon so as to ‘notice’ that at least 34 states have applied and the cover letter should include deadlines and intentions if a convention is not called in a timely manner. Courtesy copies can be sent to the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the President FYI only.

I suspect John Boehner was behind the approval of the ‘functionary’ as a response to a request by a group of state legislators. If Boehner was involved which I am sure he was, I see red flags everywhere. And I am working to raise awareness of state legislators that they should not bow before the federal government as they are in the habit of doing or else their constituents will let them have it. Their behavior is not so much ‘intended’ as it is ‘habitual’.

The problem is that some state legislators have inherited habits and carry on a ‘fealty’ behaviorism that has taken root since passage of the 17th. They seem to measure their appearance in today’s world as somehow being respectful to the King or ruling class of Washington DC as they appear on behalf of the States in Article V discussions. They seem apologetic. Whereas, 100 years ago they acted as sovereigns over the mere ‘delegates’ that were sent to Washington. they now cower instinctively and some think their ‘career path’ must steer toward Washington where just one term results in a lifetime pension and free healthcare exempt from Obamacare. To be fair there are a lot of state legislators that are not of this pattern and there are many who today are catching a lot of heat and a lot of chatter with their constituents over just what the hell is Washington DC doing and the result is when they hear a reasonable orderly effort being put forward they go to it. This is where ALEC and the COS Project have caught on.

Here’s an important video on the above subject that all on this thread should view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P3RF9Ix8ro

Now there’s a lot wrong going on in the above video but the takeaway for now should be that there are several supra groups meeting about the subject of Article V and so far the ALEC-COS Project alliance is the most successful among these supra groups by having 37 states now onboard working with them and adopting the subject matter to go forward with.

So your reading and your suggestions fall inline with the Constitution but you won’t likely get 34 state legislatures to sign up with you because 37 states have so far joined with the subject matter restrictions of ALEC. Do you get the picture? You are constitutionally correct but you are not supported by the political realities. You can be right but not many will get behind you except maybe some Bloomberg-Soros-Clinton backed leftist operatives who see your idea as a means to sink the effort.

But I forgive you because your knowledge and skill are exemplary! Let’s get you on a subject matter that moves this forward in a way that these legislatures can feel comfortable! Because that is the key!