Replies

The duties of congress are set forth in Article V. There is no mention of same subject applications or contemporaneousness. Same subject applications were considered and rejected at the 1787 federal convention.

The very limited role in the convention process allotted to congress by the framers of the constitution arose from their experience. An extra-congressional process would provide a safeguard against an abusive or recalcitrant national legislature. Debate records from the federal and state ratifying conventions make it plain that Article V is designed in part for the states to circumvent congress.

It is outright absurd to say the framers intended to entrust congress with authority over the very institution created specifically to bypass it! As Alexander Hamilton succinctly stated, “the words of this article are peremptory. The congress shall call a convention. There is no discretion.

The structure of the federal government created by the constitution also supports the view that congress’ role in the amendment process is severely limited. The convention process is created by Article V; it is not a component of any of the three branches of government created by the first three articles. The convention derives its power from a separate and independent grant of authority in the constitution itself. It cannot be made subservient to any branch of the government. Further, the sole purpose of the convention is to propose changes in the pre-existing system of government. This renders the convention distinct from, if not superior to, the three branches of government.

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. The federal convention specifically deleted reference to a single amendment on a single issue. This deliberate change is reflected in Article V and must be given substance. Congress/courts have no authority to alter or limit that power.

Nor does the plain language of Article V empower congress/courts to limit the form of state applications by topic or time limit. The whole reason for the convention method was to give the states the ability to circumvent a recalcitrant or unresponsive congress. Any construction of Article V that gives congress the ability to limit or defeat the application process is plainly incorrect. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the history of Article V is that congress has no authority to involve itself in any way in the operation of a convention for proposing amendments once it has been called.

Matters such as where the convention will meet, who shall chair it, how voting by delegates will be conducted, and what matters the convention will consider are all beyond the authority of congress.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85, once congress has called a convention it has no further role until the convention has finished its work and proposed one or more amendments.