Okay, no hell to offer, but I'll post my response here as well.
Don't be too impressed with the conclusions of Natelson or the ABA. I've read several papers by Natelson and found them informative. However, he is wrong as to single subject applications. I have no regard for the ABA. I am not starstruck by either.
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.
Our Framers were precise wordsmiths. The iterations of what became Article V dealt with your "gray" areas. See Part I of post #30. James Madison in Federalist 43, and a man you detest, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in support of equal state/congressional ability to propose amendments in Federalist 85.
The Framers purposely set a moderate threshold for the states to meet in convention (Federalist 43). Over two thirds have made applications. They should convene. If their reasons for meeting are too diverse, then the conventions won't have any amendments to pass on to the states. What is the problem with that? None.
Getting three fourths of the states to ratify amendments was designed to be much more difficult, yet not so tough as Article XIII of the Confederation. For practical purposes we are at that point in the Confederation, being stuck with an unamendable form of government, this time by those who profit so well from it.
At this moment, our once servants, now masters in Imperial Washington deny us our God given and constitutional right to frame our government. No amount of slick lawyering over 200 years later can change the historical record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacq I completely agree with your opinion on sameness of the petitions. Logic alone tells us the framers would have never intended for all applications to have to be identical and even worse have congress determine sameness as that would be a near impossible bar to attain.
I would also note there appears to be no time limit so once 34 states have applied a convention must be called.
If we allow congress to start tabulating the applications we are wasting time with this as you can rest assured one way or another the number 34 will never be reached.
Pubs, scenario requires an economic meltdown due to US default to trigger a convention. If that's what we are depending on then it's time to make other plans.
I totally agree with you about citing the ABA and such. I'm not impressed and also do not trust their motives. The constitution was not written for lawyers it was written for the people. Congress Shall call means exactly what it says. The threshold has been reached and it's time to convene.