Whatever the application counting role of congress, congress has neither the power to limit the subject matter of a convention for proposing amendments, nor the right to limit the convention to a narrow issue.
Very true. It is the states who generate the petitions. It is the states who generate the desired subject, and place it within the petition. It is the job of Congress merely to tabulate, that is, to be secretarial or ministerial in function. If the petitions with a subject(s) named by the states reach the two-thirds threshold, it is the job of Congress to copy that language into the convention call when it sets the date and place for the convention. This is how the states set the agenda.
Nor does the plain language of Article V empower congress/courts to limit the form of state applications by topic or time limit.
True, the topic is determined by the states.
However, the issue of timeliness is a gray area, as listed by the ABA Report. The ABA got it right. Let me give you an example.
Back in the 19th Century, polygamy was a hot topic when Deseret (Utah) asked to be admitted to the Union. States petitioned for a convention for an amendment to ban polygamy, but the issue became moot when the Mormons banned polygamy themselves. Utah was then admitted.
Let's say that polygamy again becomes a hot topic in conjunction with other "irregularities" around marriage. Let's say that states begin petitioning for a convention on polygamy. Should the petitions from the 19th Century be counted as still valid?
According to Dr. Natelson in the ALEC Document, yes. As he sees it, just as ratifications are forever, so are petitions for a convention.
According to the ABA Document, no. The petitions may have the same language, but they were generated for a completely different reason in a completely different time period.
Simply as a point of legal logic, I would side with the ABA on this one, as does Congress.
The problem is that the opinion of the two authors of this article is at variance with Congress and longstanding congressional practice. Their opinion is at variance with the federal courts. Most importantly, their opinion is at variance with the state attorneys general who could go to federal court at any time to get a definitive reading on this that would be in agreement with the two authors. Your authors have a minority opinion in this case.
Don't be too impressed with the conclusions of Natelson or the ABA. I've read several papers by Natelson and found them informative. However, he is wrong as to single subject applications. I have no regard for the ABA. I am not starstruck by either.
BTW, states do not petition. Subjects petitioned George III. A supplicant petitions a higher power. To say the states petition is to render them subservient status, as if they ask congress for favors.
Our Framers were precise wordsmiths. The iterations of what became Article V dealt with your "gray" areas. See Part I of post #30. James Madison in Federalist 43, and a man you detest, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in support of equal state/congressional ability to propose amendments in Federalist 85.
The Framers purposely set a moderate threshold for the states to meet in convention (Federalist 43). Over two thirds have made applications. They should convene. If their reasons for meeting are too diverse, then the conventions won't have any amendments to pass on to the states. What is the problem with that? None.
Getting three fourths of the states to ratify amendments was designed to be much more difficult, yet not so tough as Article XIII of the Confederation. For practical purposes we are at that point in the Confederation, being stuck with an unamendable form of government, this time by those who profit so well from it.
At this moment, our once servants, now masters in Imperial Washington deny us our God given and constitutional right to frame our government. No amount of slick lawyering over 200 years later can change the historical record.