In 1992, when Congress recognized the ratification of the 27th Amendment (originally written as the first of 12 Amendments in the Bill of Rights by James Madison), it also regularized the process of calls for a new Convention. It established by law that in order to be contemporaneous, such calls must be made with the last seven years.
The Ssupreme Court, by the way, has recognized that a seven year limit is resonable and within the power of Congress in this amendment process. Look it up; read it for yourselves.
Bottom line: every single state call that is older than seven years is void, null, dead, of no effect whatsoever. And that is without considering the fact that the 1992 requires what I argued for 25 years before a majority of the state legislatures in the US, that to be counted together, calls must be "on the same subject."
So the whole premise of this thread is wrong, wrong, wrong, and obsolete to anyone who reads the applicable laws since 1992.
To all readers of this thread, do not take it seriously.
Congressman Billybob
the 1992 law is as unconstitutional as congress failing to carry out its obligation to issue the call. neither the congress nor the courts have any power to place any stricture on the applications for the Article V Convention whatsoever. those laws also fly in the face of supreme court rulings.
the supreme court is as corrupt as the legislature and so in the 90s of course they put up a show of how benevolent they are in sorting out “the mess.”
and if it’s law, how do you explain more than one state in the past two years attempting to pass resolutions recinding their past applications?
in my opinion any american today arguing that state applications older than seven years is of no effect, is part of the problem and likely an insider hoping to perpetuate the charade.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”
The convention clause of Article V is not without effect.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution.”
No branch of government has the power to question the validity of a state application for the Article V Convention.
Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe the Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”
To question the validity of a state’s application attempts to construe and defeat the obvious ends of the convention clause.
Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “The departments of the government are legislative, executive and judicial. They are coordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, right-fully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, any thing which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful.”
The three branches of government are unauthorized to question the validity of a state application because the power to do so does not exist. In fact, according to Federalist 85, the saving grace of the Constitution is the prohibition of such a power. The validity/effect of each state application is based solely on its having been cast.
Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”
To attempt to question the validity of a state application, either through its contemporaneousness or subject matter, is to attempt to defeat its purpose and allow the mischief at which it’s aimed to suppress.
U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”
Any attempt at construction or interpolation as to the validity of state applications runs counter to the intention of the words used in Article V.
Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “Nothing new can be put into the constitution except through the amendatory process, and nothing old can be taken out without the same process.”
There’s nothing in the Constitution which places any stricture in any way whatsoever on the validity of state applications for a convention. If Anti-Conventionists wish to limit the validity/effect of a state’s application, they must propose such a law and then work to have that law ratified.
Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.”
The constitutional guarantee to a national convention is currently suffering subordination. Based on the rule of law the Article V Convention is mandated, which means every Congress is in violation of the U.S. Constitution until the Article V Convention is convoked.
Again I must correct a statement this time by Congressman Billybob. He is totally wrong about same subject. As I pointed out in my above comment there was a 2004 Supreme Court case on this very issue. Under the rules of the Supreme Court the attorney of record for Congress was REQUIRED to state whether or not the facts and law stated in the brief were misstated. He acknowledged formally and officially they were not.
The only standard is a simple numeric count of applying states, two thirds. It is obvious Congressman Billybob cannot read. The language of Article V is clear and according to the Supreme Count cannot be altered by either legislature or courts. The meaning is clear. “On the application of two-thirds of the several state legislatures, [Congress] shall call a convention to propose amendments...” Another way of phrasing it is, “Congress, on the application of two thirds of the several state legislatures, shall call a convention...” The purpose of the applications is clear and obvious: to cause a convention call, not to propose a specific amendment. That is the job of the convention or congress. Congressman Billybob obviously forgets this point: states cannot propose amendments, only ratify them.
He cites the 27th Amendment as the basis for his argument and position. Congressman Billybob choose the one amendment that required 212 years to ratify. Thus, his own example defeats his statement as it clearly demonstrates ratification votes exist far longer than seven years. Moreover Congressman Billybob attempts to slip in a position that mixes up the proposal process. It is true the Supreme Court has ruled Congress, in its own proposals, may limit an amendment ratification time but it did not say this means Congress can control a convention’s proposal.
That would imply Congress has editing power over a convention’s amendment proposal. The effect of this would be to give Congress a veto power over the proposal, something the Founders obviously never intended.
To settle the point I’ll add my voice to others. Produce the law Billybob. It should be in U.S. Code somewhere. Simply provide the citation such as 5 U.S.C. 1407 and we can all read the law together. Otherwise it is clear Mr. Congressman Billybob is full of it.
I’ll repeat again. There is no law. There was a proposed law but that is not the same thing as a law.