Replies

For counting purposes, an application is an application, no matter the reason.

That is not my understanding. I rely on Professor Natelson in this:

...Founding-Era practice, upon which the Constitution’s amendment convention was based, was to limit in advance the topic and scope of multi-government conventions. Discussions from the Founding Era reveal a universal assumption that applications would be made to promote amendments addressing prescribed problems. The first application ever issued, that of Virginia in 1788, was arguably limited as to subject, and hundreds of later applications have been limited as well. Indeed, the central purpose of the state application and convention procedure — to grant state legislatures parity with Congress in the proposal process — would be largely defeated unless those legislatures had the same power Congress does to define an amendment’s scope in advance.

It also follows from historical practice, not to mention common sense, that Congress should aggregate together towards the two-thirds threshold only those applications that address the same general topic. — Robert G. Natelson, State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters

If there is no specificity to state applications as to at least the general subject matter of concern, then why not just let the states apply, on the grounds that "there is no specific purpose of the COS in view, we're just applying for a COS to do whatever we feel like, once it is "called" by Congress, and we are there on the scene?"

If that's the case, how does one come up with a 34-state tally, sufficient to invoke a COS? I strongly doubt Congress, ever so jealous of its powers and prerogatives, would be willing to credit a 34-state tally on the basis of "we applying states will figure out what we're gonna do, once we get there."

If anything, that would be the very prescription for a "runaway convention."

And that is why I think — rightly or wrongly, you tell me — that an "application is an application," only when it has a reason, at least a generally specified reason stated in advance; it's not an application to effect constitutional amendment on the basis of "no matter the reason."

And that "reason" is discoverable by general conformity of the texts of state applications' subject matter. You get 34 states to agree in general on that "reason," then Congress MUST issue the CALL for a COS.

Other than that, it's not gonna happen.

Or at least, that is my understanding.

There is no reason to complicate Article V. It means what it says.

I am not dazzled by the celebrity status of either Natelson or Michael Farris. It is the states by their delegate commissions that define the limits of the convention, not the applications.

Farris/Natleson's position adds an extra requirement to the clear wording of Article V, which serves to stymie the right of the Sovereign People to meet via their states. Congress doesn't need help that regard. Let's not pretend it will ever call a convention, for a convention recognizes a higher power than the Uniparty.

Here is a youtube of Michael Farris on C-Span from August 17th, 2015. Between 1:30 and 3:00 minutes, he says that over four hundred applications have been submitted to congress.

He also states that the convention can discuss whatever topics it wishes. If the convention is only limited by the commissions of the delegates, why must applications be single topic? It doesn't make sense.

You seem to be fearful of a convention. There needn't be a collective "reason" to meet anymore than an individual needs a reason to own a gun. Article V is the societal right of a nation to self-defense just as the 2A is an individual right to self-defense.

Here is my hypothetical; put yourself in 1800 when you consider it.

If the best thinkers in nine states each came up with a unique improvement idea for an amendment to the Constitution and wanted an opportunity to convince the legislatures of the 13 states, in debate, of the worthiness of their ideas, Article V would not permit this?

Given the rustic wilderness of the times, it was the intention of the Framers to first have these nine unique ideas discussed privately in order to get nine states to submit same subject applications for a CoS, only to have the debate again within the jurisdiction of an Article V convention?

Given the mail of the times and the distances to be traveled, it is unreasonable to assume that the Framers expected the logistics and time necessary to get nine states to coordinate on a single subject convention before calling for one. A pragmatic interpretation would suggest that the Article V convention was for the purpose of determining if there was commonality sufficient to warrant an amendment.

If it was known beforehand and generally agreed that an amendment was needed, the states would simply have told their Congressional members to do it in Congress.

-PJ