Absolutely TRUE; but to me, this truthful observation seems qualified by two things: (1) the Sovereign People do not act directly, but through the mediation of their States; (2) They cannot act at all, if their States do not make application to Congress for an Article V COS for the Purpose of Proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Article V elucidates the constitutional manner in which this must be done. Absent the congressional CALL, it isn't going to get done.
You wrote,
IMHO, and with history as our guide, congress WILL NEVER CALL A CONVENTION.... It is therefore the duty of the states to just do it. Exercise a societal and constitutional responsibility; meet in convention to turn back tyranny.Well, certainly Congress has never issued an Article V COS CALL, at least not so far.
Meanwhile, we have Michael Farris pointing out that, so far in our history, there have been over 400 State Applications to Congress to CALL an Article V COS. These Applications have been all over the "subject matter" of the sovereign people's concerns, which have varied over time. The evident fact remains that State applications on different subject matter will not be aggregated for the purpose of establishing the 34-state threshold necessary to force Congress into issuing the CALL, without which any contemplated convention would have zero constitutional basis, standing, or effect.
"Aggregation" rules are not part of the facial text of Article V. But it seems to me the need for same is implied, and essential, on logical and common-sense grounds. In what other way can we find out whether the 34-state threshold has been met?
I propose a thought experiment, actually two.
The first would be something along the lines that you might warm to: Get 34 States to "call on" Congress to issue its congressional CALL to convene an Article V COS for the purpose of proposing amendments on the basis that this convention as contemplated would be a wide-ranging, general-purpose convention not limited to any particular subject matter going in. It seems to me they still have to get over the aggregation bar in some way. Maybe they could do that, by adopting virtually identical language in their Applications. Maybe something like, "This State is applying for an open COS not limited as to subject matter." If 34 States all said the same thing in their Applications, even if the Clerk of Congress and National Archivist are total morons, assuming they can read, they must recognize that identical language is identical language. If 34 States are using identical language, then how can Congress fail to aggregate them? Upshot: Congress "shall" issue its CALL. Possibly, this could work.
Or second, how about lobbying, urging our state representatives to make Application to Congress for a COS dedicated to the single topic of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment? That situation is a lot more limited and straightforward than a "general purpose" convention. Get 34 States to apply specifically on the the narrow-focus matter of repeal of the Seventeenth, using same language, and Congress must issue its CALL. "Same language" should ensure that all such Applications qualify for aggregation. The language of any State's Application itself might specify that its application shall be aggregated with the applications of all other States on the topic of repeal of the Seventeenth.
What would happen, under these two scenarios? It would be gratifying to find out.
In conclusion, though Article V does not require a COS to confine its scope to a "single topic," there has to be some commonality of interest of the States that goes beyond purely regional or local problems, and it is in their Applications that the States make this known.
Just some thoughts, FWTW. I'm struggling through this the same as you are, dear Jacquerie. Thank you ever so much for sharing your thoughts.
Let's go back to my hypothetical posted earlier.
Back in 1800, the states would not have needed Congress to call for a single-subject CoS; they would simply have instructed their Senators to introduce a bill in Congress to propose the amendment. The other states would then have supported the bill or not.
Your "common sense" aggregation of single-subject amendments is really the other half of Article V's amendment process; single-subject amendments introduced by Congress.
The fact that today's post-17th amendment Congress has gone rogue doesn't change the original intent of the proposing convention: proposing amendments, not an amendment.
-PJ
It does absolutely no good to complain about the (implicit) aggregation rule.
The real challenge here is to make the aggregation rule work for US — We the People of the United States of America, who on fundamental constitutional questions MUST act through our respective States.
Hmmm. If I read your post correctly, We The Sovereign People have the right to frame, adjust, and otherwise amend our governmental structure as we see fit via our states as long as we get permission from Congress?