A Convention of the States... is part of the Proposal function.
The COS is not necessarily a physical assembly of persons at a particular geographic location. Rather the COS is, effectively, the aggregation of the Applications of the legislatures of the several states calling for an amendment or amendments to the Constitution. As a practical matter, all such State Applications would have to be in substantial agreement as to the need for such particular amendment(s), for the following reason:
Congress is what does the aggregating: Thus, as a practical matter, the language of State Applications must be in substantial agreement in order that any given State's Application can reasonably be "aggregated" with other States' Applications respecting the same matter. When the (current) magic number of 34 State Applications — or two-thirds of the States — is achieved, Congress MUST call for a Convention for Proposing Amendments, and set the time and date for same.
The above details the Amendments Convention Method of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
You note that the States may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Yet an expert source you referred me to, Robert G. Natelson, seems to suggest a request for a general convention might not be taken seriously by Congress in today's political climate.
He points out that, with the exception of the Bill of Rights and Amendment XXI (repealing prohibition), all Amendments to the Constitution first arose in Congress, not in State Conventions, and had the effect of constraining the powers of the States. The two named exceptions were explicit reductions and constraints on the powers of Congress; i.e., on the federal government itself. They originated, not in Congress, but by the Amendments Convention Method.
Anyhoot, the convention for proposing amendments is "basically a drafting committee or task force, convened to reduce one or more general ideas to specific language." It is an interstate collaboration.
Once this has been done, it's time for the Ratification function. Congress then has the exclusive authority (the Disposal function) to specify which of two ratification methods will be used: Either by vote of State legislatures directly, or by State Conventions, whose delegates are appointed by and answerable to their respective State legislature.
Thus to the Ratification process. It requires the votes of three-fourths of the States — now 38 States — by whichever method Congress has directed, to pass a constitutional amendment. But once that number has been achieved, the amendment MUST be put into effect. It becomes part of the Constitution with full effect as the law of the land.
I hope my understanding, as outlined above, is correct. Please, Publius, do feel free to correct me if it's not.
Thank you ever so much, Publius, for the outstanding contributions you have made to FR over many, many years! And for helping me with the present matter.
Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. Beyond that, your post is pretty much on target.
For over 200 years, Congress has held to both a Single Subject Standard and a Contemporaneousness Standard. Are either mentioned in the Constitution? No. Has Congress ever legislated either of them into law? No, although the 1973 ABA Report chides Congress on using unwritten standards rather than writing them into law. The two standards have over 200 years of precedent, however. If you ask any congressman or senator about either standard, he will explain the precedent to you and how its roots are in contract law. If you ask most federal judges, they will say the same. There is a small portion of the legal profession that believes that the two standards are unconstitutional, that Congress should have called a convention in 1895 when the two thirds level was reached for any number of aggregated subjects, and that all conventions are general in nature. That's a minority position, however.
Has anyone tried to go to federal court to invoke the minority position? Yes. Bill Walker, a truck driver from Auburn (WA) filed in 2000 asking the federal courts to order Congress to call a convention dedicated to all subjects that had been applied for since 1789. I spent two years of my life editing Walker's brief, which was a graduate level course on Article V. What it was not was "brief." It took two whole loose-leaf binders. The court refused to hear Walker's case, and all higher courts also refused to hear it. He lacked standing, being an individual, not a state. Did Walker ask any state attorney general to file his case? Yes, and not one wanted a general convention under Walker's terms.
The late John Armour, a constitutional lawyer from Asheville (NC), was known here as "Congressman Billybob." He looked at Walker's brief, which was available at a website, and explained to me that the judge had probably never even read it, and he explained the assumptions that Walker had gotten wrong.
As Congress sees it, applications from the states must be for the same subject and contemporaneous, although Congress has never legislated a time frame. Congress has delegated the duty of building the spreadsheet to the Archivist of the United States. He maintains the spreadsheet by row (state) and column (subject). When the two thirds level is reached, the Archivist sends a memo to both House and Senate leadership telling them need to "call" a convention by setting the time, place and subject matter that is extracted form the applications from the states. At that point Congress steps out of the picture until the convention's work is done, and zero, one, or more amendments are reported to Congress for Disposal.
Either by vote of State legislatures directly, or by State Conventions, whose delegates are appointed by and answerable to their respective State legislature.
A state legislature may determine how a state ratifying convention is chosen, but the last time around (1933), the state legislatures had the memberships of their state ratifying conventions chosen by the people in special elections.