> “Is there a rationale to suggest that in 1787, the framers made Congress a clearing house for Article V solely for logistical reasons? Maybe they thought it was simpler for individual states to notify a single Congress instead of all the other states, and then let Congress notify all the states when the threshold was met?”
You have it exactly right. It was far simpler for the states to use Congress as the concierge for the state applications.
If Article V had been written to allow states to call their own convention, then it would have been a show of disunity.
To show unity between the states and Congress, the clause was written unambiguously that “Congress must call”. This empowers the states but forces them to accede to Congress in treaty.
The clause that allows Congress to decide the mode of ratification to the state legislatures or state conventions empowers Congress to decide of the motives and intents of the state legislators are with the people or not. This is a balancing clause.
Balancing state power and federal power as well as balancing powers among federal branches was a key element in crafting the Constitution. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment severed the balancing restraints between states and federal government.
That is an excellent post. If we ever put together an FAQ list for this project, that text needs to be in it.
Here is the give and take debate surrounding what became Article V at the Federal Convention.