Replies

There is no subject matter requirement for applications, and congress has no power to determine the subject matter of the convention.

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.

Good point, states apply, they do not petition. And upon application of 2/3’s of the states applying, Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments.

Article V does not say states must submit applications WITH amendments attached, only that they apply to Congress and that Congress MUST call a convention for proposing amendments.

So Congress need not even know what amendments are proposed until states convene their convention=meeting, and even then states are not required to let their deliberations be made public although in all likelihood they will make them so.

You're free to assert that there is no requirement for applications from the states for an Amendments Convention to list a subject. You're free to assert that Congress has been derelict since the 1890's. But the fact that it's your opinion, and the opinion of those two legal writers, does not make it so. Congress will not say, "Oh gosh, we should have called a convention in 1895, but we didn't. We had better get on the ball and call one now!"

No state attorney general, who by the way would have standing, is going to go to federal court and make that claim, and no federal court will order Congress to call a convention based on the legal thinking of the two authors of that legal piece. That's just how the world of politics, law and power works. I'm not talking legal theory, I'm talking legal facts on the ground.

By concentrating on this item, you're taking your eye off the ball. Keep your eye on the ball!

The "ball" here is to get a minimum of 34 states to apply for a convention using Georgia's language which was extracted from Mark Levin's book. Once we have that, Congress will call a convention, if for no other reason because of the optics of openly defying the Constitution.

By the way, I don't "detest" Hamilton. I don't know where you got that, but it's a cheap shot. You're a good enough debater to skip such foolishness.