[LibertyBorn]

OneWingedShark: "By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization."

If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.

No, by basing the currency on a real physical item, you stabilize the value of that currency, but only relative to the commodity. However a commodity-based currency does not change the fact that the more can be created, and the alleged value of the currency falls relative to the value of the commodity. This country has done that before too.

Also the "amount of debt that can be accumulated" quite obviously is not relevant to the physical commodity allegedly on-hand, and the amount of debt was not limited by our alleged gold supply when we were on a gold standard. Furthermore the idea that any creditor came and checked that gold when assuming our debt, is also equally ridiculous. The one thing that secured our debt was American industry, and the fact that you and I working with shackles on us pulling that federal tax plow, is the greatest security for debt in the world.

No, currency value and debt are not tied together by any means.

The only thing tying a currency to a commodity does is attempt to stabilize the economy, prevent inflation or deflation of prices, but it does not guarantee a debt-free government. Furthermore limiting the available currency in the populace, which is what keeping the dollar at a static gold value would do, only hurts the economy by prohibiting investment and growth. Whereas having an over-abundance of currency in an economy causes that inflation. Therefore a currency's staility is a result of it's acessibility relative to the size of the population. Tying the dollar to gold again makes no sens.

The colonies had extraordinary productivity when they operated under their own colonial script. The problem resulted when Britain saw this productivity, all without the use of the British Pound, and reacted by flooding the colonial society with counterfeit script.

Today we have a worse problem: our dollar is based on a false debt to a private entity that has no authority to claim debt owed for the creation of an essentially worthless commodity (currency).

A currency is nothing more than another commodity being traded for, and is in constant flux relative to a variety of commodities. However that currency is alot more preferable to carry around and trade with rather than a farmer carrying his hens, or a carpenter toting a cabinet, etc.

OneWingedShark (Regarding Article V proponents ignoring the enumerated powers):

"Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)"

The Courts cannot usurp the power to regulate interstate commerce, because the Constitution indicates that the federal government exclusively has that authority. iF you tried to run with that argument at a Constitutional Convention, you'd look like the day's sacrificial lamb to the opposition. The problem is not the authority itself, but the clearly intended meaning of "regulate". But knowing enough about the Constitution to recognize what that "regulate" means in terms of the federal government's authority, takes entirely too much work for the Article V peons, so they'd rather just write their own Constitution add-ons. Obviously you don't "turn that back" by writing more Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government is already prohibited from doing what it is doing by the existing terms of the Constitution, therefore writing "more Constitution" is not even close to a valid response. An Article V Convention is nowhere close to the proper tool for the job at hand. In fact there is no easy, convenient tool available at all, given the fact that the government is deliberately in disregard of the Constitution, and not there merely be accident of circumstance. An Article V convention only aids the overthrow of the Constitution, and puts our Liberty and unalienable rights at extreme risk, which is the intent of the globalist-statists.

When you're doing precisely what the enemy expects you to do, you're playing the wrong game, and it's time to change the rules. When you have quite literally ZERO chance of positive outcome, and enormous likelihood of horrific outcome destroying this nation forever, the only resonsible decision is to walk away and not play the game by those terms. However Article V Proponents like hitching their hopes to false fantasies, irregardless of the risk. Yes, "really".

OneWingedShark: "But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare. "

Actually there only appears to be a correlation, the actual correlation to America's debt and the "unexplainable" loss of tillions of dollars is slightly less than six 18 months time, is actually far more serious than the welfare state. The actual cause is something Kennedy warned us about as the "military industrial complex", and it's actually what is running our government now, not the elected stuffed pigeons that serve as our public distraction. And the actual motivation is far more ominous than some repachaged Marxist "Progressives" wanting to spread the wealth around, and handing out our productivity to others.

As a result, an Article V Convention isn't even the right ballpark for the game being played. As indicated, zero chance of success.

OneWingedShark: "Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous! "

You mean that the Cabinet to the President of the United States, recognized under law, might have ANY POSITIVE CORRELATION AT ALL with an "ad hoc" bunch of miscreants with a preconceived agreement, and no publicly recognized authority, joining together to try and dictate others lives? Good luck with that one!

Terry Trussell, once of Operation American Spring, is sitting in jail in Florida with FOURTEEN FELONIES against him, and near certainty of spending the remainder of his life behind bars, with the majority of the charges involving his having "simulated legal process" with a common law grand jury. Given that Trussel's condition is so clear-cut, rather than ignoring the obvious, perhaps at least considering trying something entirely original, such as simulating a Presidential Cabinet Meeting. If nothing else, I hear the food is mildly better in a federal prison.

Sadly, part of the reason these "common law" grand juries have so many people convinced, is because they don't have clue what "common law" means, and imagine it might be a guiding principle of this country they just don't understand, and they appear to be an easy, safe solution However there are many among us who do understand, and would not hesitate to shoot those grossly "under-educated" miscreants the minute they threaten our lives and property, whether they are forming a "common law grand jury" or going into to aid and abet the overthrow of our form of government and our unalienable rights at an Article V Convention.

You might consider actually pausing to contemplate a response, before throwing out such an ill-considered argument as this.

OneSingedWhark: "First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger — but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny. "

Actually, the idea that Sheriffs might serve as a check against federal authority (only in their county), is something that has worked out only sometimes. They reality is that Sheriffs are every bit as ignorant about the Constitution as are other Americans.

Contrary to your indication, which is the ONLY relevant commentary here (not to distract you from hunting daisies in the pasture), Sheriffs are not imbued with unerring ethic and regard for the Constitution as a result of holding that office.

Furthermore for a guy who is so eager to corrupt the legal system by mixing the policing authority with the judicial authority, you've got no legitimacy in making claim to any sort of constitutional "checks".

OneWingedShark: "No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound."

While it's fun to make vague allusions to the Constitution without any specific reference or application, but the passage you quoted to make your above response was concerning the fabrication of Grand Jury falsely pretending to be a legitimate legal processes.

Furthermore, the State sovereignty has nothing whatsoever to do with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which is not really applicable to this discussion regarding "Grand Juries". Given this utter lack of relevance, I have to wonder if you have any real grasp of what that Supremacy Clause actually indicates.

OneWIngedShark (regarding Grand Juries): "Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong."

No, thus far I've indicated you're wrong, and WHY you're wrong. I've also twice now provided you the specific link to an extensive and supported article I've written.

My job is not to hold your hand and walk you down the primrose path of education. Either you go there yourself, and at least attempt to understand the arguments, or you choose to be ignorant of them. If nothing else, I would think you would want to learn what that enigmatic "common law" actually is. And if I were you, I would certainly want to do a rewrite of the side-notes for the Grand Jury amendment. While I wont waste my effort forcibly educating you, if you sincerely wanted help understanding a consideration, I'd gladly invest whatever time was necessary.

Third time's the charm: "Are Common Law Grand Juries Valid?"

I don't just write articles. I've been on-air numerous times to discuss these issues, addressed various public forums, and involved in numerous personal discussions, even having an extended discussion with Sheriff Maack.

I have no idea what you mean by "an appeal to what we're doing now". Who is this "we" you're referring to, and what is that "we" allegedly doing now? This tiny failure to communicate clearly, much less understand accurately, is why no one should be allowed anywhere near a Constitutional Convention. We cannot afford such inexactness when writing further Constitution.

The Magna Carta is the least of your worrries. However you are not alone in falsely elevating that Magna Carta to be some marvellous document recognizing individual rights, when it does no such thing. It is a Medieval fuedal document, in which King John made limited accommodations to only specified rebelling landed Barons, in which he alone said he would provide them these allowances, and they had no basis in any sort of expectant right. In fact John's allowances lasted less than a year, because John made another agreement to Pope Innocent III promising him fealty if the Pope would free him of that obligation.

The idea that the Magna Carta is some protection of ancient personal liberties is nothing but a grossly inaccurate political myth. But don't take it personally: even my brilliant grandfather, a renowned surgeon told me that myth when I was very young. Even brilliant people can be extremely ignorant and uninformed.

OneWingedShark (In reference to 14th Amendment's "incorporation" of rights for the States): "Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion."

It does not matter what you yourself directly asserted. The fact of the matter is that the claim of the 14th Amendment "incorporating" the recognition of Rights by the States UNDENIABLY relies on the belief that those Rghts are grants/allowances to us from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Furthermore, you rejection of that incorporation of rights to the States, has you directly arguing that State sovereignty should allow them to ignore those rights --- which STILL inherently involves your argument recognizing those Rights as originating from the Constitution!

If you don't grasp this on your own, then we should not be engaging any further discussion on this particular topic of where our Rights originate from until you do grasp it.

OneWIngedShark: "I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights — but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man — the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow."

It's great that you believe natural rights exist, but what your personal belief may be is irrelevant to my certainty I will not have those rights forfeit by others ignorant actions.

"Natural law" and rights recognized under "natural law", do not have anything to do with "the inherent nature of man". Man's inherent nature is to accumulate all he can for himself, and to deny others what is not his own, and even to commit murder.

The "inherent nature of man" has nothing to do with natural law. The inherent nature of man is why this nation's founders intended to prohibit any office or branch of the government from having any unrestrained authority. The inherent nature of man is why every branch and office of the government now disregards those constraints.

Natural law recognizes self evident facts, as in "we old these truths to be self-evident" (Declaration of Independence). It is a self evident fact that every living thing has a righ to defined its life with any lethal force necessary. We have a right to act on the world about us provided that our own actions do in impinge on the rights of others. We have the uncontestable self-ownership of our own bodies, and from this self-ownership all other rights flow, thereby making ObamaCare entirely invalid

It is a self-evident fact that no man wants a court fabricating on the fly "what the law is" and then adjudging his guilt by that new law only there fabricated by the Court. Here in this country we, recognize this common law approach as inherently tyrannous, and that's why we have our own laws written down. Therefore the founders recognized in the 7th Amendment that, where there is no applicable law, then a jury of one's peers should decide the conflict before it, rather than any judge.

OneWingedShark: "But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:

1. No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage. — acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage.
2. No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. — Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust.
3. No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. and
   No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. — reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.
4. Fiscal Responsibility Amendment — Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
5. Commerce Clause Amendment — Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)

Most of these have nothing even vaguely to do with protection of real natural law rights. None of them to anything at all to restore legitimate governance. They're just treating the symptoms while turning a blind eye to the disease, thereby validating the corruption.

OneWingedShark: "In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment — are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work. "

I am vehemently against that Grand Jury amendment, because it entirely guts the rule of law, falsely elevates ad hoc mob rule to being the incontestable dictate of the country, and is a threat to everyone's freedoms, property and very lives. I did "constructive" over in my article and numerous other responses on this and other forums. You had a chance to read "constructive" in my first two references to common law grand juries, but you declined to even go to the site.

I don't insult you personally. I tell you the frank truth of the value of "your work", and right now I am doing so with much less of my previous diplomacy, because you've earned it by our own objectionable comments, such as asserting I support a living Constitution. If you believe I am unloading on you, this is nowhere close to how harsh I might be on this subject matter. And don't take it personally, you are by no means alone in that boat. I'm sure you're fundamentally a decent guy, you just really need to educate yourself far more, particularly if you pretend the insight to write amendments to the Constitution.

In fact I am no lawyer, although I once had every intention to be one. I was actually born while my father was attending a prestigious law school, and am told my first playpen was stacked law books on the floor. However that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that I've been arguing with at least one highly qualified attorney all my life, and in my own line of work, I became the preferred person to give testimony to court because of my understanding of how to present evidence, and argue a position.

The fact is this isn't about just restoring legitimate government. This is about far more. Right now we stand at our very last chance, our last hope, to preserve this country and individual freedoms, and it is a piss poor time to choose Constitutional suicide via an Article V Convention. It doesnt get any more serious than this, but some take even modification to the Constitution entirely too lightly.

[LibertyBorn]

Below is a list of the calls for amendment to the Constitution via Convention of the States, going back to 1787.

The following 29 States are recognized as having an outstanding Call for a convention:

Alaska (2014), Arizona(1996), Arkansas(1977), Delaware(1994), Colorado(1992), Georgia(2014), Idaho(1989), Indiana(1979), Iowa(1979), Kansas(1978), Maryland(1977), Mississippi(1979), Missouri(1994), Nebraska(2010), Nevada(1996), New Hampshire(2012), New Mexico(1979), North Carolina(1979), North Dakota(2015), Oklahoma(1980), Oregon(1979), Pennsylvania(1979), South Carolina(1979), South Dakota(2015), Tennessee(2014), Texas(1979), Utah(1979), Virginia(1977), Wyoming(1963)

Take note, most of these calls are 35 years or older. (Imagine the anger to ensue if the Constitution were overthrown under these terms.)

Alabama, Florida and Louisiana — rescinded their calls for a convention, specifically a balanced budget amendment.

MAGIC NUMBER!: The number of calls needed for a convention is 2/3 of the States, being 34. Currently there are only 29. However if ONLY TWO more States call for a convention, then reports are that Convention proponents plan to litigate to achieve that "magic number" by challenging the legitimacy of Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana having canceled their calls.

WE MUST FIGHT TO STOP EVEN TWO MORE STATES MAKING CALLS FOR CONVENTION!

Apparently a Constitutional Convention of the States is like "Hotel California" - you can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave, nor can you undo what the will undoubtedly do. Given a consistency in their tactics, it is becoming evident that Convention proponents are not the most honest lot. Their claim that "Convention of the States" is legitimate but not "Con Con", is nothing but dishonest propaganda. These proponents are certainly nowhere on par with the benign convention delegates in Philadelphia in 1787, and they overthrew the existing constitution, and did so without by entirely new ratification terms.

State Applications for an Article V Convention.

State	Issue/Subject	Date of State's Approval	Reference to Proposal's Text	Class
Virginia	Bill of Rights	November 14, 1788	AC V.1 258-259	(II)
New York	Bill of Rights	February 5, 1789	AC V.1 282Text	(II)
Georgia	Clarify Amendment X	December 12, 1832	J HR V22.2 270-271	II 2004
South Carolina	Clarify Amendment X	December 19, 1832	J HR V22.2 219-220	II 2004
Alabama	Limitation on Tariffs	January 12, 1833	J HR V22.2 361-362	II
New Jersey	Final Resolution for Slavery	February 1, 1861	CG V. 36.2 p. 681	(II)
Kentucky	Final Resolution for Slavery	February 5, 1861	CG V.36.2 p. 773	(II)
Illinois	Final Resolution for Slavery	February 28, 1861	CG V.36.2 p. 1270	(??)
Indiana	General	March 13, 1861?	CG V.37.S 1465-6	I
Ohio	General	March 20, 1861	1861 Ohio Laws 181	I
Nebraska	Direct Election of Senators, Other	April 14, 1893	1893 Neb. Laws 466-7	III
Texas	General Convention	June 5, 1899	CR V.33 p.219	I
Minnesota	Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 13, 1901	CR V.34 p.2561	(III)
Pennsylvania	Direct Election of Senators, II	February 13, 1901	CR V.45 p.7118	(III)
Idaho	Direct Election of President, Vice-President and Senators	February 14, 1901	CR V.45 p.7114	III 2000
Montana	Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, II	February 21, 1901 January 31, 1905	CR V.35 p.208 CR V.39 p.2447	(III) 2007 (III) 2007
Oregon	Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 23, 1901 March 10, 1903 January 26, 1909	CR V.35 p.117 CR V.45 p.7118 CR V.43 p.2025	(III) 2000 (III) 2000 (III) 2000
Tennessee	Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 27, 1901 March 14, 1905	CR V.35 p.2344 CR V.45 p.7119	(III) 2010 (III)
Colorado	Direct Election of Senators, I	April 1, 1901	CR V.45 p.7113	(II)
Michigan	Direct Election of Senators, Other	April 9, 1901	CR V.35 p.117	(III)
Texas	Direct Election of Senators, I	April 17, 1901	CR V.45 p.7119	(II)
Arkansas	Direct Election of Senators, Other	April 25, 1901	CR V.45 p.7113	(III)
Kentucky	Direct Election of Senators, II	February 10, 1902	CR V.45 p.7115	(III)
Illinois	Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 10, 1903 May 23, 1907	CR V.45 p.7114 CR V.42 p.164	(II) (III)
Nevada	Direct Election of Senators, II	February 25, 1903	CR V.37 p.24	(III)
Utah	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 12, 1903	CR V.45 p.7119	(III) 2001
Washington	Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 12, 1903	CR V.45 p.7119	(II)
Nebraska	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 25, 1903	CR V.45 p.7116-7	(III)
Iowa	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 24, 1904	CR V.38 p.4959	(III)
Missouri	Direct Election of Senators, II	March 18, 1905	CR V.40 p.1905	(III)
South Dakota	Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I	February 2, 1907 February 9, 1909	CR V.41 p.1907 CR V.43 p.2667-2668	(III) (III)
Delaware	Anti-Polygamy	February 11, 1907	CR V.41 p.3011	III
Missouri	General Convention	March 6, 1907	CR V.45 p.7116	I
Indiana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 11, 1907	CR V.45 p.7114	(II)
Iowa	Direct Election of Senators, Other	March 12, 1907	CR V.45 p.7114-5	(II)
Nevada	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 23, 1907	CR V.42 p.163	(II)
New Jersey	Direct Election of Senators, I	May 28, 1907	CR V.42 p.164	(III)
Louisiana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	November 25, 1907	CR V.42 p.5906	(II) 1990
Oklahoma	Direct Election of Senators, Other	January 20, 1908	CR V.45 p.7117-8	(II) 2009
South Dakota	Anti-Polygamy	February 6, 1909	CR V.43 p.2670	III
Kansas	Direct Election of Senators, I	March 6, 1909	CR V.45 p.7115	(II)
Wisconsin	Direct Election of Senators, I	May 31, 1910?	CR V.45 p.7119-20	(III)
Washington	Anti-Polygamy	September 1, 1910	CR V.46 p.651	III
Montana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	January 20, 1911?	CR V.46 p.2411	(II) 2007
Tennessee	Anti-Polygamy	February 17, 1911	CR V.47 p.187	III 2010
Maine	Direct Election of Senators, Other	February 22, 1911	CR V.46 p.4280	(III)
Montana	Anti-Polygamy	March 1, 1911	CR V.47 p.98-9	III 2007
Nebraska	Anti-Polygamy	March 14, 1911	CR V.47 p.99	III
Ohio	Anti-Polygamy	March 15, 1911	CR V.47 p.660-1	III
Illinois	Anti-Monopoly	May 11, 1911	CR V.47 p.1298	III
Wisconsin	General Convention	June 12, 1911?	CR V.47 p.1873	I
California	Direct Election of Senators, I	June 13, 1911?	CR V.47 p.2000	(??)
Vermont	Anti-Polygamy	December 18, 1912	CR V.49 p.1433	III
Oregon	Anti-Polygamy	January 20, 1913	CR V.49 p.2463	III 2000
Illinois	Anti-Polygamy	March 12, 1913	CR V.50 p.121	III
Wisconsin	Anti-Polygamy	March 26, 1913	CR V.50 p.42-3	III
Missouri	Supreme Court Jurisdiction	April 15, 1913	CR V.50 p.2428	III
Michigan	Anti-Polygamy	July 2, 1913	CR V.50 p.2290	III
South Carolina	Anti-Polygamy	February 15, 1915	CR V.53 p.242	III 2004
Louisiana	Mode of Amendment, Other	January 12, 1920?	CR V.60 p.31	?? 1990
Nevada	Anti-Prohibition	December 7, 1925?	CR V.67 p.458	(??)
Wisconsin	Direct Election of President and VP	December 7, 1925?	CR V.67 p.458	??
Wisconsin	Article V Conditions Met	September 23, 1929?	CR V.71 p.3856
New Jersey	Anti-Prohibition	February 1, 1931?	CR V.75 p.3299	(III)
Massachusetts	Anti-Prohibition	March 13, 1931?	CR V.75 p.45	(III)
New York	Anti-Prohibition	December 8, 1931?	CR V.75 p.48	(IV)
Wisconsin	Anti-Prohibition	December 23, 1931?	CR V.75 p.57	(III)
California	Tax on Government Securities	January 7, 1935	CR V.79 p.10814	III
California	Federal Labor Laws	January 7, 1935	CR V.79 p.10814	III
Oregon	General Welfare Act of 1937	January 7, 1939?	CR V.84 p.985	III 2000
Wyoming	Income Tax, Limit II	March 8, 1939?	CR V.84 p.2509-10	III 2009
Maryland	Income Tax, Limit II	March 27, 1939?	CR V.84 p.3320	III
Rhode Island	Income Tax, Limit I	March 26, 1940?	CR V.86 p.3407	III
Maine	Income Tax, Limit I	April 17, 1941	CR V.87 p.3370-1	III 1953
Iowa	Income Tax, Limit II	April 18, 1941?	CR V.87 p.3172	III
Massachusetts	Income Tax, Limit I	April 29, 1941	CR V.87 p.3812-3	III 1952
Michigan	Income Tax, Limit I	May 16, 1941?	CR V.87 p.4537	III
Iowa	Presidential Term Limits	March 26, 1943?	CR V.89 p.2516	(III)
Illinois	Presidential Term Limits	March 26, 1943?	CR V.89 p.2516-7	(III)
Michigan	Presidential Term Limits	March 26, 1943?	CR V.89 p.2944	(III)
New Hampshire	Income Tax, II	April 29, 1943?	CR V.89 p.3761-2	III 2010
Delaware	Income Tax, Limit I	May 3, 1943?	CR V.89 p.4017	III
Illinois	Income Tax, Limit II	May 26, 1943	CR V.98 p.742-3	III 1952
Pennsylvania	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	May 27, 1943	CR V.89 p.8220	III
Pennsylvania	Income Tax, Limit II	May 27, 1943?	CR V.89 p.8220	III
Alabama	Income Tax, Limit I	June 8, 1943	CR V.89 p.7523-4	III
Wisconsin	Presidential Term Limits	September 14, 1943?	CR V.89 p.7525	(III)
Wisconsin	Income Tax, Limit I	September 14, 1943?	CR V.89 p.7524	III
New Jersey	Income Tax, Limit I	February 25, 1944	CR V.97 p.10973	III 1954
Kentucky	Income Tax, Limit I	March 20, 1944	CR V.90 p.4040-1	III 1951
Arkansas	Income Tax, Limit II	March 28, 1945	CR V.98 p.742	III
California	World Federation	April 19, 1949?	CR V.95 p.4568-9	IV
North Carolina	World Federation	April 20, 1949	CR V.95 p.6587-8	IV
New Jersey	World Federation	April 20, 1949?	CR V.95 p.4571	IV
Michigan	Revenue Sharing, II	May 5, 1949?	CR V.89 p.5628-9	IV
Florida	World Federation	May 16, 1949	CR V.95 p.7000	III 2010
Nebraska	Revenue Sharing, II	May 25, 1949	CR V.95 p.7893-4	IV 1953
Connecticut	World Federation	June 1, 1949	CR V.95 p.7689	IV
Kansas	Income Tax, Limit I	March 8, 1951	CR V.97 p.2936	III
Iowa	Revenue Sharing, II	May 9, 1951?	CR V.97 p.3939-40	IV
Florida	Income Tax, Limit I	May 10, 1951?	CR V.97 p.5155-6	III 2010
Maine	Revenue Sharing, II	June 4, 1951?	CR V.97 p.6033-4	IV
New Hampshire	Revenue Sharing, II	August 28, 1951	CR V.97 p.10716	IV 2010
Georgia	Limited Treaty Powers, Various	January 29, 1952	CR V.98 p.1057	III 2004
Georgia	Income Tax, Limit I	February 6, 1952	CR V.98 p.1057	III 2004
New Mexico	Revenue Sharing, II	February 11, 1952?	CR V.98 p.947-8	IV
Utah	Income Tax, Limit I	February 11, 1952?	CR V.98 p.947	III 2001
Indiana	Income Tax, Limit II Income Tax, Limit II	February 18, 1952? May 12, 1957	CR V.98 p.1056-7 CR V.103 p.6474	III III
Virginia	Income Tax, Limit I	February 21, 1952	CR V.98 p.1496	III
California	Motor Vehicle Tax Distribution	February 22, 1952?	CR V.98 p.4003-4	III
Louisiana	Income Tax, Limit I	January 13, 1953?	CR V.99 p.320	III 1954
South Dakota	Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	March 5, 1953 February 15, 1955 March 2, 1963	CR V.99 p.9180-1 CR V.101 p.2861-2 CR V.109 p.14638-9	IV 2010 IV 2010 III 2010
Illinois	Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	June 25, 1953 March 5, 1963?	CR V.97 p.9864 CR V.109 p.3788	IV III
Georgia	School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right	January 31, 1955 February 5, 1959 March 4, 1965	CR V.101 p.1532 CR V.105 p.1834 CR V.111 p.5817	III 2004 III 2004 III 2004
Texas	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	March 14, 1955? April 4, 1963	CR V.101 p.2770-1 CR V.109 p.11852	IV III
Oklahoma	Income Tax, Limit Other	May 23, 1955	CR V.101 p.8397-8	III 2009
Idaho	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	April 1, 1956?	CR V.103 p.4831	IV 2000
Michigan	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	April 4, 1956	CR V.102 p.7241	IV
Indiana	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	March 12, 1957	CR V.103 p.6471-2	IV
Indiana	Limited Treaty Powers, Various	May 12, 1957	CR V.103 p.6472-3	III
Indiana	Proportional Electoral College, Other	May 12, 1957	CR V.103 p.6473	III
Indiana	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other	May 12, 1957 January 26, 1976?	CR V.103 p.6475 CR V.122 p.931	III III
Florida	Supreme Court Review, Other	June 5, 1957	CR V.103 p.12787	III 2010
Alabama	Judicial Term Limits	June 25, 1957	CR V.103 p.10863	III
Connecticut	Prohibit Interstate Income Tax	May 6, 1958?	CR V.104 p.8085-6	III
Alabama	Limited Federal Preemption	January 1, 1959?	CR V.105 p.3083	III
Wyoming	Limit Federal Powers	February 20, 1959?	CR V.105 p.3085	III 2009
Arkansas	Validity of 14th Amendment	March 18, 1959?	CR V.105 p.4398	III
Nevada	Limit Federal Powers	March 11, 1960	CR V.105 p.10749	III
Louisiana	Limit Federal Powers	June 11, 1960?	CR V.105 p.14401	III 1990
Arkansas	Supreme Court Review, Other	February 2, 1961	CR V.107 p.2154	III
Wyoming	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 21, 1961 February 8, 1979?	CR V.107 p.2759 CR V.125 p.2116	III 2009 IV 2009
Georgia	Supreme Court Review, Other	March 9, 1961?	CR V.107 p.4715	III 2004
South Carolina	Limit Federal Powers	March 11, 1962?	CR V.108 p.5051	III 2004
Oklahoma	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	January 21, 1963	CR V.109 p.1172	III 2009
Oklahoma	Apportionment of Legislature, I	January 21, 1963	CR V.109 p.1172-3	III 2009
Kansas	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	January 31, 1963	CR V.109 p.2769	III 1970
Kansas	Apportionment of Legislature, I	January 31, 1963	CR V.109 p.2769	III 1970
Florida	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	February 5, 1963	CR V.109 p.2071-2	III 2010
Florida	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	February 5, 1963	CR V.109 p.2072	III 2010
Wyoming	Apportionment of Legislature, I	February 9, 1963	CR V.109 p.4779	III 2009
Nevada	Apportionment of Legislature, I	February 12, 1963 February 17, 1965?	CR V.109 p.9942	III
Wyoming	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	February 14, 1963	CR V.109 p.4778-9	III 2009
Idaho	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 14, 1963? January 26, 1965?	CR V.109 p.2281 CR V.111 p.1229	III 2000 III 2000
Wyoming	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	February 15, 1963	CR V.109 p.4779	III 2009
Arkansas	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	February 21, 1963?	CR V.109 p.2768	III
Arkansas	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	February 21, 1963?	CR V.109 p.2768-9	III
Arkansas	Proportional Electoral College, Other	February 21, 1963?	CR V.109 p.2769	III
Arkansas	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 21, 1963? April 5, 1965?	CR V.109 p.2769 CR V.111 p.6917-8	III III
Wisconsin	Proportional Electoral College, I	March 2, 1963	CR V.109 p.14808	III
South Dakota	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 2, 1963 March 1, 1965?	CR V.109 p.14639 CR V.111 p.3722-3	III 2010 III
Idaho	Balanced Budget, Other	March 11, 1963?	CR V.109 p.3855	III 2000
South Dakota	Proportional Electoral College, Other	March 11, 1963?	CR V.109 p.3982	??
Montana	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 11, 1963? February 15, 1965?	CR V.109 p.3854 CR V.111 p.2777	III 2007 III 2007
Alabama	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	March 13, 1963	CR V.109 p.5250	III
Montana	Proportional Electoral College, I	March 25, 1963?	CR V.109 p.4469	III 2007
Washington	Apportionment of Legislature, I	March 30, 1963	CR V.109 p.5867	III
Texas	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	April 4, 1963 July 26, 1965	CR V.109 p.11852 CR V.111 p.18171	III III
Utah	Proportional Electoral College, I	April 8, 1963?	CR V.109 p.5947	III 2001
Missouri	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	April 8, 1963?	CR V.109 p.5868	III
Missouri	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	April 8, 1963? February 18, 1965?	CR V.109 p.5868 CR V.111 p.3304	III III
Colorado	Proportional Electoral College, I	April 11, 1963?	CR V.109 p.6659	III
Colorado	Income Tax, Limit Other	April 25, 1963?	CR V.109 p.7060	III
Texas	Proportional Electoral College, I	May 22, 1963	CR V.109 p.11852-3	III
South Carolina	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	June 10, 1963?	CR V.109 p.10441	III 2004
South Carolina	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	June 10, 1963?	CR V.109 p.10441-2	III 2004
South Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 10, 1963? February 18, 1965?	CR V.109 p.10441 CR V.111 p.3304	III 2004
Virginia	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 15, 1964? December 3, 1964	CR V.110 p.5659 CR V.108 p.880-1	III III
Massachusetts	School Management, Other	March 18, 1964	CR V.110 p.7616	III
Massachusetts	Senior Pensions	April 23, 1964	CR V.110 p.9875	III
North Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, II	May 12, 1964	CR V.111 p.10673	III 1969-Not Joint
Virginia	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	December 3, 1964	CR V.111 p.880	III
Louisiana	School Management, States' Right	January 6, 1965	CR V.111 p.165	III 1990
Kansas	Apportionment of Legislature, II	January 27, 1965	CR V.111 p.3061-2	III 1970
Arizona	Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 15, 1965?	CR V.111 p.3061	III 2003
South Carolina	School Management, States' Right	February 18, 1965	CR V.111 p.3304	III 2004
Tennessee	Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 23, 1965	CR V.112 p.200	III 2010
Alabama	Apportionment of Legislature, II	February 25, 1965	CR V.112 p.200-1	III
Utah	Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 8, 1965	CR V.111 p.4320	III 2001
Maryland	Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 25, 1965	CR V.111 p.5820	III
Oklahoma	Proportional Electoral College, I	May 12, 1965	CR V.111 p.11488	III 2009
Minnesota	Apportionment of Legislature, II	May 12, 1965	CR V.111 p.10673	III
Louisiana	Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 1, 1965	CR V.111 p.12110	III 1990
New Hampshire	Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 8, 1965	CR V.111 p.12853	III 2010
Illinois	Revenue Sharing, Other	June 9, 1965	CR V.111 p.14144	III
Florida	Apportionment of Legislature, II	June 15, 1965	CR V.111 p.14163	III 2010
Illinois	Apportionment of Legislature, II Apportionment of Legislature, Other	June 22, 1965 March 13, 1967	CR V.109 p.19379 CR V.113 p.8004	III 1969-Not Joint III
Mississippi	Apportionment of Legislature, II	July 7, 1965?	CR V.111 p.15769	III
Mississippi	School Management, States' Right	July 7, 1965?	CR V.111 p.15769-70	III
Mississippi	Anti-Subversion	July 7, 1965?	CR V.111 p.15770	III
Ohio	Revenue Sharing, Other	July 29, 1965	CR V.109 p.25237	III
Nebraska	Proportional Electoral College, I	August 10, 1965	CR V.109 p.19775	III
Nebraska	Apportionment of Legislature, I	September 22, 1965	CR V.109 p.24723	III
Kentucky	Apportionment of Legislature, II	October 6, 1965?	CR V.111 p.26074	III
New Mexico	Apportionment of Legislature, II	January 14, 1966?	CR V.112 p.199	III
Indiana	Apportionment of Legislature, II	March 13, 1967?	CR V.113 p.6384	III
Alabama	Revenue Sharing, Other	April 5, 1967	CR V.113 p.10118-9	III
North Dakota	Apportionment of Legislature, Other	April 28, 1967	CR V.113 p.11175	III 2001
Georgia	Revenue Sharing, Other	May 4, 1967	CR V.113 p.11743	III 2004
Illinois	Revenue Sharing, Other	June 28, 1967	CR V.113 p.17634-5	III 1969-Not Joint
Texas	Revenue Sharing, Other	June 28, 1967	CR V.113 p.17634	III
Iowa	Apportionment of Legislature, Other	April 13, 1969?	CR V.115 p.12249	III
Florida	Revenue Sharing, Other	September 3, 1969	CR V.115 p.24116	III 2010
New Hampshire	Revenue Sharing, I	February 25, 1970	CR V.115 p.36154	III 2010
Mississippi	School Management, Other School Management, No Assignment	March 5, 1970? March 2, 1973?	CR V.113 p.17634 CR V.119 p.8089	III IV
Louisiana	Anti-Subversion	June 22, 1970?	CR V.116 p.20673	III 1990
Louisiana	Income Tax, Limit Other	July 7, 1970?	CR V.116 p.22906	III 1990
Louisiana	Revenue Sharing, Other	July 10, 1970?	CR V.116 p.23765	III 1990
New Jersey	Revenue Sharing, I	December 16, 1970?	CR V.116 p.41879	IV
West Virginia	Revenue Sharing, I	January 26, 1971?	CR V.117 p.541-2	IV
Delaware	Revenue Sharing, I	February 18, 1971?	CR V.117 p.3175	??
Massachusetts	Revenue Sharing, I	March 4, 1971	CR V.117 p.5020	IV
South Dakota	Revenue Sharing, I	March 8, 1971	CR V.117 p.5303	IV
North Dakota	Revenue Sharing, I	April 26, 1971?	CR V.117 p.11841	IV 2001
Oregon	Revenue Sharing, I	May 24, 1971?	CR V.117 p.16574	??
Louisiana	Revenue Sharing, I	June 15, 1971?	CR V.117 p.19801-2	IV 2000
Ohio	Revenue Sharing, I	June 28, 1971?	CR V.117 p.22280	IV
Massachusetts	School Management, Other School Management, Other	September 8, 1971? March 28, 1973	CR V.117 p.30905 CR V.119 p.12408-9	IV IV
Michigan	School Management, No Assignment	October 28, 1971	CR V.117 p.41598-9	IV
Iowa	Revenue Sharing, I	March 2, 1972?	CR V.118 p.6501-2	IV
Florida	Senate Control of Presiding Officer	April 4, 1972?	CR V.118 p.11444	IV 2010
Arizona	School Management, Prayer	April 4, 1972?	CR V.118 p.11445	III 2003
Tennessee	School management, No Assignment	May 8, 1972?	CR V.118 p.16214	?? 2010
New York	School Management, Other	October 2, 1972?	CR V.118 p.33047-8	IV
Virginia	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 23, 1973 March 10, 1975? March 29, 1976?	CR V.119 p.8091 CR V.121 p.5793 CR V.122 p.8335-6	IV III IV
Mississippi	Prayer in Public Buildings	March 20, 1973?	CR V.119 p.8689	IV
Virginia	School management, No Assignment	April 3, 1973?	CR V.119 p.10675	??
New Jersey	School Management, Other	April 9, 1973?	CR V.119 p.11446	??
Texas	School Management, No Assignment	April 10, 1973?	CR V.119 p.11515	IV
Oklahoma	School Management, No Assignment	April 25, 1973	CR V.119 p.14428	III 2009
Maryland	School Management, Other	May 7, 1973?	CR V.119 p.14421	??
Nevada	School Management, No Assignment	May 29, 1973?	CR V.119 p.17022-3	IV
New Hampshire	School Management, Other	June 5, 1973?	CR V.119 p.18190	?? 2010
Arkansas	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 10, 1975? March 8, 1979?	CR V.121 p.5793 CR V.125 p.4372	III IV
Mississippi	Balanced Budget, Other	April 29, 1975?	CR V.121 p.12175-6	III
Missouri	Right to Life, Various	May 5, 1975?	CR V.121 p.12867	III
Nevada	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	June 26, 1975?	CR V.121 p.21065	III
Louisiana	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, General	July 28, 1975? February 8, 1979? July 19, 1979?	CR V.121 p.25312 CR V.125 p.2110-1 CR V.125 p.19470-1	III 2000 IV 2000 V 1990
Kentucky	School Management, No Assignment	September 8, 1975?	CR V.121 p.27821	III
Alabama	Balanced Budget, Other	September 10, 1975?	CR V.121 p.28347	IV 1989
Georgia	Balanced Budget, General	February 6, 1976?	CR V.122 p.2740	IV 2004
Delaware	Balanced Budget, Other	February 25, 1976?	CR V.122 p.4329	IV
South Carolina	Balanced Budget, Emergency Balanced Budget, Other	February 25, 1976? February 8, 1979?	CR V.122 p.4329 CR V.125 p.2114	IV 2004 IV 2004
Massachusetts	School Management, No Assignment	April 7, 1976?	CR V.122 p.9735	III
Oklahoma	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	June 7, 1976?	CR V.122 p.16814	III
Louisiana	Right to Life, Various	July 22, 1976?	CR V.122 p.23550	IV 1990
Maryland	Balanced Budget, Emergency	January 28, 1977?	CR V.123 p.2545-6	IV
Texas	Balanced Budget, Emergency Balanced Budget, Other	March 15, 1977? February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.5224	IV
Virginia	Line Item Veto, Various	March 28, 1977?	CR V.123 p.9289	??
New Jersey	Right to Life, Various	April 5, 1977?	CR V.123 p.10481	IV
South Dakota	Right to Life, Unborn Right to Life, Sacred Life	April 18, 1977? April 18, 1980?	CR V.123 p.11048	IV 2010
Utah	Right to Life, Various	May 2, 1977?	CR V.123 p.13057-8	III 2001
Arkansas	Right to Life, Various	May 20, 1977?	CR V.123 p.15808-9	IV
Rhode Island	Right to Life, Various	May 20, 1977?	CR V.123 p.15809	IV
Arizona	Balanced Budget, Emergency	June 14, 1977?	CR V.123 p.18873-4	III 2003
Massachusetts	Right to Life, Various	June 23, 1977?	CR V.123 p.20659	??
Indiana	Right to Life, Various	July 22, 1977?	CR V.123 p.4797	??
Nebraska	Right to Life, Various	April 21, 1978	CR V.124 p.12215	IV
Pennsylvania	Right to Life, Various	April 25, 1978?	CR V.124 p.11438	IV
Tennessee	Judicial Term Limits	April 25, 1978?	CR V.124 p.11437	III 2010
Tennessee	Balanced Budget, Other	April 25, 1978?	CR V.124 p.11438	III 2010
Kansas	Balanced Budget, Emergency	May 19, 1978?	CR V.124 p.14584	IV
Delaware	Right to Life, Various	June 9, 1978?	CR V.124 p.17055	III
Colorado	Balanced Budget, General	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2109	V
Oklahoma	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113	IV 2009
Oregon	Balanced Budget, General	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113	IV 2000
Nebraska	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2112	IV
New Mexico	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2112-3	IV
Pennsylvania	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113-4	IV
North Dakota	Balanced Budget, Other	February 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113	II 2001
Nevada	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 8, 1979? January 29, 1980?	CR V.125 p.2112 CR V.126 p.1104-5	III V 1989-Not Joint
Florida	Balanced Budget, General Balanced Budget, Other	February 8, 1979? June 21, 1988?	CR V.125 p.2109-10 CR V.134 p.15363	IV 1988 VI 2010
North Carolina	Balanced Budget, Emergency	February 22, 1979?	CR V.125 p.2113-4	??
Mississippi	Right to Life, Various	February 26, 1979?	CR V.125 p.3196	IV
South Dakota	Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 1, 1979?	CR V.125 p.3656	V 2010
Idaho	Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 1, 1979?	CR V.125 p.3657	V 2000
Utah	Balanced Budget, Emergency	March 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.4372-3	V 2001
Georgia	Right to Life, Various	March 8, 1979?	CR V.125 p.4372	IV 2004
Indiana	Balanced Budget, Emergency	May 1, 1979?	CR V.125 p.9188	IV
New Hampshire	Balanced Budget, General	May 16, 1979?	CR V.125 p.11584	IV 2010
Iowa	Balanced Budget, General	June 18, 1979?	CR V.125 p.15227	IV
Nevada	Right to Life, Various	June 25, 1979?	CR V.125 p.16350	V
Arizona	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	July 19, 1979?	CR V.126 p.11389	III 2003
Idaho	Right to Life, Various	March 21, 1980?	CR V.126 p.6172	V 2000
Oklahoma	Right to Life, Various	April 24, 1980?	CR V.126 p.8972	IV 2009
Tennessee	Right to Life, Various	May 2, 1980?	CR V.126 p.9765	IV 2010
Alabama	Right to Life, Various	May 8, 1980?	CR V.126 p.10650	IV
North Dakota	Right to Life, Various	April 27, 1981?	CR V.127 p.10650	??
Alaska	Balanced Budget, General	February 3, 1982?	CR V.128 p.798	??
Missouri	Balanced Budget, General	July 21, 1983?	CR V.129 p.20352	V
Arizona	Line Item Veto, Various	June 5, 1984?	CR V.130 p.14956	III 2003
South Dakota	Line Item Veto, Various	March 12, 1986?	CR V.132 p.4473	V 2010
Utah	Income Tax, Limit Other	March 30, 1987?	CR V.133 p.7299	IV 2001
South Dakota	Congressional Term Limits	April 4, 1989?	CR V.135 p.5396	IV 2010
Idaho	Income Tax, Limit Other	April 10, 1989?	CR V.135 p.5895	??
Georgia	Flag Desecration	April 16, 1991?	CR Vol. 137, pp. 8085-8086, POM-26 (Resolution No. 105)	IV 2004
Colorado	Limited Funded Mandates, Various	June 26, 1992?	CR Vol. 138, p. 16552, POM-428 (SJM 92-3)	V
South Dakota	Limited Funded Mandates, Various	March 22, 1993?	CR Vol. 139, p. 5905, POM-50 (SJR 3)	V 2010
Missouri	No Judicial Taxing Power	June 29, 1993?	CR Vol. 139, p. 14565, POM-175 (SCR 9)	V
Delaware	Income Tax, Limit Other	June 28, 1994?	CR Vol. 140, p. 14718, POM-554 (HCR 56)	IV
Missouri	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	June 29, 1994?	CR Vol. 140, p. 15072, POM-575 (SCR 21)	V
Arizona	No Judicial Taxing Power	March 27, 1996?	CR Vol. 142, pp. S3012-S3013, POM-523 (SCR 1014)	III 2003
South Dakota	No Judicial Taxing Power	March 27, 1996?	CR Vol. 142, p. S3013, POM-526 (HCR 1010)	III
Nevada	Congressional Term Limits	June 29, 1996?	Nevada Constitution	III
North Dakota	No Judicial Taxing Power	April 6, 2001?	CR Vol. 147, p. S3705, POM-7 (HCR 3031)	III
Louisiana	Posse Comitatus	April 29, 2008?	CR Vol. 154, p. S3504, POM-329 (HCR 38)	IV
Nebraska	Balanced Budget (Reaffirmation of 1976 LR 106)	April 13, 2010	LR 538	V
Florida	Balanced Budget, Other	April 19, 2010	CR Vol. 160, pp. S5563-S5564, POM-323 (SCR 10)	V
North Dakota	Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures	April 11, 2011	CR Vol. 158, p. S1459, POM-66 (SCR 4007)	IV
North Dakota	Mode of Amendment, Other	April 14, 2011	HCR 3048	V
Alabama	Balanced Budget, Other	June 1, 2011	CR Vol. 160, pp. S3666-S3667, POM-251 (SJR 100)	V
Louisiana	Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures	June 21, 2011	CR Vol. 158, p. S2241, POM-69 (HCR 87)	IV
New Hampshire	Balanced Budget	May 16, 2012	HCR 40	V
Ohio	Balanced Budget	November 20, 2013	CR Vol. 160, p. S1174, POM-197 (SJR 5)	V
Georgia	Balanced Budget	February 20, 2014	CR Vol. 160, pp. S3667-S3668, POM-254 (SR 371)	V
Georgia	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress	March 6, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-285 (SR 736)	V
Michigan	Balanced Budget	March 26, 2014	SJR "V"	V
Tennessee	Balanced Budget	April 9, 2014	HJR 548	V
Alaska	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress	April 19, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S6021, POM-345 (HJR 22, also referred to as "Legislative Resolve No. 68")	V
Florida	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress	April 21, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-286 (SM 476)	V
Florida	Balanced Budget	April 21, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-288 (SM 658)	V
Florida	Legislation in Congress to contain only one subject and that one subject must be clearly expressed in the measure's title	April 23, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-289 (HM 261)	V
Vermont	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	May 2, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S4331, POM-284 ("Joint Senate Resolution" No. 27)	V
Louisiana	Balanced Budget	May 15, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S5563, POM-322 (HCR 70)	V
California	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	June 23, 2014	CR Vol. 160, p. S5507, POM-320 (AJR 1)	V
Illinois	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	December 3, 2014	SJR 42	V
South Dakota	Balanced Budget	February 17, 2015	HJR 1001	V
New Jersey	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	February 23, 2015	SCR 132	V
Utah	Balanced Budget	March 6, 2015	HJR 7	V
North Dakota	Balanced Budget	March 24, 2015	CR Vol. 161, pp. 2399-2400, POM-17 (HCR 3015)	V