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!
But your idea that Congress count all comers is a disastrous suggestion. Why? I say there should be a standing convention that meets annually. I guarantee it would have a tremendous effect on Scotus decisions.
You are constitutionally correct but you are not supported by the political realities.
Therein lies our differences. Both Article V and the Second Amendment, one which provides for societal protection of the nation, and the other for personal self-defense, are independent of political parties. Like our other rights, their exercise doesn't need a "reason" and are there for all.
We are apprehensive of an Article V state convention because we haven't had one.
Fear of the unknown is a common apprehension, but as it regards Article V, it is unwarranted.
Why assume that ambassadors from the states will perform their duties in the same reprehensible manner we know so well from the Uniparty denizens in Washington, DC? Since most congressmen and senators would sell their souls today for reelection tomorrow, doesn't mean we should expect states to send hacks with no interest beyond their own to an Article V convention. An erroneous equivalence is made between the familiar, and that which we have never seen.
Unlike the wild lawlessness of the Uniparty on display in DC, the Article V state convention process itself is a tremendous safeguard for liberty, for unlike our thoroughly debased and self-serving Congress, those attending a convention will join a fresh and uncorrupted institution. The difference in behavior and demeanor we can expect between congressmen and convention attendees is identical to that between men’s conduct in strip clubs and church.
States will send serious men and women of character and judgment armed with detailed, focused and strict commissions to promote their state supported amendments. State ambassadors to an amendments convention will be unconcerned with that which drives the DC Uniparty; money, personal power, and reelection will not be their focus or interest. Here for instance, is the Indiana statute that will govern the conduct of its delegation. Criminal sanctions and other penalties are provided in the improbable event of going outside of one’s commission.
We can have every expectation the states and their ambassadors will rise to the occasion. They will understand the gravity of their assignment and conduct themselves in a manner precisely opposite that of the Uniparty. Would states with majorities of their people fed up with joblessness, Obamacare, Mexican and muslim invasions, Scotus, EPA regulations and other administrative diktats too numerous to count actually recommend dangerous and liberty crushing amendments?
Every proposed amendment passed by majority vote in the state amendments convention must be ratified by three fourths of the states to become part of the constitution. Pause and ask yourself if proposals from the state legislatures that meet this high bar should not be in our governing document.
The trail of history is littered with fallen republics, of peoples insufficiently covetous of their liberty. We are admittedly far down that tragic path, yet we have not been sentenced to misery and destitution.
Take comfort in, and smile at the reality that no nation ever sold itself into slavery. Meet in convention and let good and serious men and women, isolated from the corrupt Uniparty, discuss the changes to our republic so necessary to reclaim freedom.
Article V before we can’t.