[Congressman Billybob]

No. the pending calls for a new Convention were all wiped out in 1992, when Congress recognized that the Madison Amendment had been ratified. It had no time limits in it. Congress established a seven-year rule for state calls for a new Convention. The Supreme Court had previously recognized that a seven-year restraint on state ratifications was a legitimate, housekeeping action.

Bottom line: all the old state calls for a Convention on any subject (including a rejection of any World Court) are nullities.

John / Billybob

[Publius]

Bottom line: all the old state calls for a Convention on any subject (including a rejection of any World Court) are nullities.

Following that logic, had Ohio and Wyoming laid petitions for a convention to address a balanced budget amendment before Congress, those petitions would have been #1 and #2, not #33 and #34. That would mean that Phyllis Schlalfly was not only wrong, but completely out of the ballpark. Thus, only those petitions created since 1992 are valid.

Your information about the 17th Amendment is rather disturbing. Rather than call a convention, Congress passed the 17th Amendment on to the states for ratification. Yet Congress, under Article V, had an obligation to call a convention for proposing amendments.

Other than that, did my magnum opus make sense, and -- more importantly -- did it conform to the law?

[Publius]

I have question abour precedent.

In 1913, enough states requested a convention on the issue of the direct election of senators to require Congress to call a convention. But Congress didn't. Instead, it sent its own version of a constitutional amendment to the states to defuse the situation.

Because Congress didn't call a convention when the Constitution required it, didn't that set a precedent? Because of that, can't Congress refuse to call a convention the next time 34 states request one?