> “If we decide that a single subject isn’t important or enforceable by Congress, then why have a subject at all? “
Who is asking Congress to judge importance of subject matter or to consider enforcing subject matter?
Indeed, Hostage. Article V denies Congress any role in either instance.
Under Article V, WRT a convention of the states, Congress is not acting as a legislature, let alone a judge. Its function, as Prof. Natelson points out, is strictly ministerial, acting for the benefit of the State legislatures, not the federal government or its own institutional interests.
BTW, Hostage, I agree with you that "States' Rights and the Control of States' Rights" qualifies as a "single subject." The second part – "control" — is not a different, separate topic, but is logically incidental to the first part — "States' rights."
I'm trying to follow semimojo's reasoning, and may not have gotten it right. (Correct me please if this is not the case!) It seems he equates the input — "single subject" — with an "output" — which can only be a single proposed amendment.
But if the subject matter is States' rights and the powers incidental to effecting it ("control"), then a Convention of the States for the Proposal of Amendments organized around this subject matter conceivably could elicit multiple proposals. Every proposal would be subject to vote by the state delegations (assuming a quorum exists) on a one-vote/one-state basis. A simple majority would carry the proposal; and if carried, that proposal would become eligible as a proposed amendment, on a stand-alone basis.
So a "single subject" isn't necessarily restricted to a single proposed amendment.
At least, that is my understanding, based on Prof. Natelson's splendid analysis.
No one that I know of is suggesting that. Let me help. Congress determining whether a petition addresses a single subject is different than congress judging the importance of whatever that subject may be.