I was speaking metaphorically.
The Senate is a perpetual convention of states, authorized by Article I, for the purpose of legislating. Prior to the 17th Amendment, the states even selected their own delegates.
Article V authorizes a convention of states for the purpose of amending the Constitution. I was noting the similarity that these were both bodies at the direction of the states, not of the federal government.
I DEMAND that Congress perform its completely non-optional duty to call a COS, upon evidence that a 34-state quorum on subject matter has been established sufficient to FORCE such a call.
Then that is our point of disagreement. Asking for subject matter agreement in application, to me, is an unnecessary "high bar" that is intended by opponents to stop the Article V process. It becomes a Congressionally-imposed burden on states, which makes states subordinate to Congress. Buying into the argument that same subject applications are required just buys into the idea that Congress is supreme in this matter.
-PJ
"Prior" is the operative word here. Arguably, though the first part of your statement is indubitably correct, the Seventeenth Amendment absolutely detached the Senate from the state governments which they were intended to represent. They no longer represent state governments; arguably, they no longer even represent the people of their states. They are just a big political faction or club of "solons" in Washington, mainly representing party interests. In recent times, the Senate has ensured legislation that a majority of citizens demand has not got a snowball's chance in Hell of being enacted.
That's history now, and we have to live with it. Unless we repeal the Seventeenth.... Which subject the Georgia Application contemplates.
With all respect, PJ, I hope we can just agree to (cordially!) disagree on the entire matter of state Applications. You see the Application as "a Congressionally-imposed burden on states, which makes states subordinate to Congress."
I just don't see it that way. In the first place, this is not a Congressionally-imposed burden. It is authorized by the plain language of Article V itself:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.... [emphasis added]This is hardly a constitutional demand that the States offer obeisance to Congress. It is a mere stipulation of the Article V procedural rules for the calling of a COS.
After the COS is CALLED, Congress has neither a legislative nor executive role to play. Then, Congress' role becomes, as Prof. Natelson puts it, purely ministerial, like that of a diplomat acting as agent for a sovereign government in its dealings with other sovereign governments. (Which to my mind is perfectly fitting.) Congress has no will or power of its own WRT the COS or any of its procedures, rules, or subject matter.
I sense perhaps what aggravates you even more than the "Application" issue is the "aggregation" issue. It is "best evidence" for upholding the well-precedented historical and juridical view that Article V does not recognize a "general convention" as an Article V COS. From this, I infer that a CALLED convention is always called for a reason, or reasons. Otherwise, to me, it might just as well be yet another drunken frat party, or late-night bull session of a bunch of stoned underclassmen.... Something completely beneath the dignity of the U.S. Constitution.
Aggregation sets the criterion of states' intent to address common concerns, as stated in their Applications, by proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution. Thus, you need 34 states sending Applications addressing substantially similar subject matter. Then, once you've got 34 states, Congress MUST issue the CALL for the COS. And completely steps out of the picture, not to return until the Convention concludes its business, and actually proposes amendments.
Then, Congress steps back in, to specify which mode of Ratification will be used, by state legislatures, or by state conventions. After Congress "disposes" of this matter, whichever ratification mode they choose, Congress is not further involved in the ratification process, other than to validate and record the states' votes.
But here's some news that might cheer you up: According to The Article V Library, there are now 32 applying states that have qualified for aggregation by the National Archivist, for the purpose of convening a COS on a proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
Only two more states to go.... :^)
Thanks ever so much for writing, PJ!