The second thing is that there are now 4 states applying for a convention to address Mark Levin's and ALEC's concerns. Georgia was the first to apply, and the other three states have copied Georgia's language. Research Georgia's language to see how the states are framing their applications.
The third thing is that the ALEC-sponsored pre-conventions are doing precisely what you wish with respect to agreeing on application language and internal rules of procedure. This is to occupy legal ground before Congress can claim it and try to impose its own rules.
Everybody in the ALEC effort is doing his part to set up the precedents that will apply not only for the first convention, but for all subsequent conventions. It's a way of finessing Congress, the political parties and the Beltway power brokers. This effort is cautious and careful in defining the legal playing field.
I stand GLADLY CORRECTED by you in this matter of "petition" vs. "application." The states cannot appear to be going to Congress hat-in-hand, as if begging the "master" for some crumbs from his table. As you wrote, "The states are not subordinate entities, but equal, in this situation." That is, WRT an Article V COS. Thank you for pointing this out, Publius!
As to the Georgia language: Is this found at the entry POM–285, of the Congressional Record — Senate, dated July 9, 2014? Just read it. This application gives as its subject matter:
That the General Assembly of the State of Georgia hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress....Then it had the good sense to provide an "anti-aging" mechanism, and frankly states it is (wants to be) subject to aggregation with other states' applications that bear on the same subject matter.
On a quick review, I see that the Georgia language is virtually identical to the applications language of Alaska and Florida. Other recent applications — Louisiana, Michigan, Tennessee — seem to limit their scope to a balanced budget amendment. That's only one of the items in the Georgia et al. applications. That being the case, I wonder whether Congress would aggregate all six. What do you think, Publius?
I thought this was a simply brilliant insight:
...the ALEC-sponsored pre-conventions are doing precisely what you wish with respect to agreeing on application language and internal rules of procedure. This is to occupy legal ground before Congress can claim it and try to impose its own rules. [added itals]And indeed, I found Natelson's draft of proposed convention rules cautious, careful, and pro-active in defining the legal playing field, with an especial view to warding off potential congressional and/or court challenges, down the road.
Thank you so very much, Publius, for your highly instructive essay/post!