#1 Arizona 1996
#2 Arkansas 1952.
#3 California 1931
#4 Colorado 1910
#5 Illinois 1910
#6 Indiana 1907
#7 Iowa 1908
#8 Kansas 1907
#9 Louisiana 1908
#10 Connecticut 1949
#11 Kentucky 1861
#12 Massachusetts 1931
#13 Maine 1911
#14 Georgia 1832
#15 Michigan 1941
#16 Missouri 1905
#17 Montana 1911
#18 Alabama 1833
#19 Alaska 1982
#20 Florida 2010
#21 Nebraska 1949
#22 North Carolina 1907
#23 Nevada 1907
#24 North Dakota 2012
#25 Delaware 1978
#26 New Jersey 1907
#27 New Hampshire 1969
#28 New York 1789
#29 Oklahoma 1910
#30 Oregon 1909
#31 Pennsylvania 1943
#32 South Carolina 1833
#33 South Dakota 1989
#34 Wisconsin 1929
#35 Tennessee 1978
#36 Texas 1899
#37 Virginia 1789
#38 Washington 1911
#39 West Virginia 1971
#40 Wyoming 1910
#41 Utah 1987
#42 Rhode Island 1977
Positions of ArticleV.org
There is a great deal of dispute regarding laws that guide the process of anArticle V
convention. We hope to address all issues surrounding this topic with clarity and pass on the knowledge to help others carry this message forth that seek solutions to our chronic problems.
No More State Applications for Convention are Required
The States have satisfied the required two-thirds numerical threshold to call for an Article V Convention under Article V of the US Constitution and Congress should call an Article V Convention to order.
We offer the attached data to support this.
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/AmendmentsCongress Must Call a Convention Without Mental Reservations
The Constitution mandates Congress call a convention when two thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention call. Today that means 34 states must submit 34 applications. As demonstrated by Wisconsin in 1929 when 35 states applied by that date. According to the Constitution, calling for a Convention is a legal question and a mandatory duty of Congress. Congress is not allowed to have mental reservations about following these instructions. Presently, Congress sees this issue as a political question giving them a choice to acknowledge or ignore the applications of the states. While a district court did rule in 2000 the call was a political question for Congress to decide, the federal government has also admitted in court such decision violates the
(please bear witness to the record of over 700 applications to Congress by 49 states)
oath of office clause of the Constitution and thus constitutes a federal crime.
Congress or States do not have the power to set the limitations of the convention
The Supreme Court has ruled this in U.S. v Sprague that there are no rules of construction, interpolation or addition permitted in Article V. As such as there is no text giving Congress or the states such power, it does not exist. This also explains why the states cannot control Congress and dictate to them what amendments they will propose, when they will propose them and so forth. Only the Constitution through Article V has the power to limit the Convention to proposing amendments and not allowing a complete rewrite of Constitution. The reason a convention cannot do this is because if it could so could Congress but both are forbidden by the word “amendment” rather than “alteration” which is what was contained in the old Articles of Confederation.Alteration allows for the alteration of the original document; amendment only permits additions or deletions of words separate of the original document with that document remaining intact. Also, the convention may not infringe on the equal suffrage of States in the U.S. Senate. Since Article V also says “convention to propose amendments”, it is easy to see how the convention will examine more than one proposal.Applications do not expire until a convention is called.
They may not be rescinded by Congress or States; the Congressional Record is a historical document. The reason rescissions are not constitutional beyond the fact Article V does not describe them is the Tenth Amendment which clearly states powers assigned to the federal government are the federal government’s. Powers assigned to the states are the states. An application, once it has left the state and been submitted to Congress becomes a federal record kept in the Congressional Record as required by the Constitution. Thus, under the terms of the Tenth Amendment the states cannot effect a public federal record. This also explains why the states cannot control Congress or a convention.Article V Requires Applications, Not Identical Amendments
The amendment proposal attached in the application is a suggestion to the convention of an amendment the state favors. The application thus serves two purposes. First, the fact the state submits it regardless of content serves to “count” the state toward the two thirds necessary to cause a convention to be called. Once Congress has finished and called the application then becomes a petition for the convention to address regarding whatever amendment subject the state favors. Like all other petitions submitted by the people and so on, the convention then considers the petition and acts on it meaning it may or may not propose the amendment submitted. The Founders rejected the states directly proposing amendments and instead only allowed the states to apply for a convention which in turn proposes amendments in the 1787 Convention. Therefore, suggestion of amendments in applications have no legal bearing on applications being used by Congress to determine if two thirds of the states have applied. Applications may be of different subject matter or be an open call for a convention. It makes no difference–all that matters is two thirds of the states have applied for a convention call.
The Declaration of Independence States it is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish Their Form of Government
This fundamental right is incorporated into the Constitution in Article V. This provision allows two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution; Congress or a convention and provides two means whereby any proposal must be ratified before becoming part of the Constitution. The reason for this is to allow for great public discourse and thought before any change to our national law is made.
The Federalist Papers #85Delegates are nominated and elected to an Article V convention according to each state’s own election rules.
Alexander Hamilton’s essay in The Federalist Papers #85 was the closing argument to states to agree to the Constitution. Hamilton was a strong supporter of Federal powers, yet also strongly supported the method of convention to reign in power of the Federal Government. Hamilton pointed out one of the major strengths of the convention was the states could propose amendments through the use of the convention independent of Congress. Thus the states retained power in the new government. He stated the call was “peremptory” a position the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated. Peremptory means, as Hamilton stated, that the national rulers shall have “no option” as to calling a convention. Thus, such things as contemporaneous of applications, subject matter and so forth have no bearing on whether Congress must call–only the number of submitting states matters.“By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged ”on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” The Federalist Papers #85
The Tale of the 17th Amendment’s passage:
Many people have heard of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign to pass the 17th Amendment allowing for direct election of Senators. Prior to passage, U.S. Senators were elected by State legislators. In 1911, 33 states applied to Congress for an Article V convention proposing this amendment. Instead, in 1913, Congress passed the 17th Amendment sending it to the states for ratification. Because Congress proposed the 17th Amendment and Congress did not call, people were led to believe the applications were null and void. This is not true. The fact Congress proposed an amendment does not relieve it of its responsibility to call a convention even if that convention would be considering a different version of the same amendment. Proposal of an amendment and calling a convention are two separate duties of Congress. Article V does not say Congress shall call a convention unless it proposes an amendment first. It says Congress shall call. Thus, since a convention was not called, all applications are still active. Also, the applications included direct election of the President. 31 of the applications also called for elimination of the electoral college. Thus, there is nothing to say an amendment coming out of the convention would have been the same that Congress proposed. Indeed, all evidence points to the contrary. (I’d put a link here to at least one application showing such proposal of president and electoral college).
The Supreme Court affirmed delegates must be elected in a 1920 case, Hawke v Smith (need link). These rules are the same rules that govern election of members of Congress. Under the terms of the 14th amendment citizens elected to Congress who can propose amendments and citizens elected as delegates to a convention form a legal class. The Constitution mandates they shall receive equal protection under the law meaning whatever laws apply to Congress equally apply to the convention.
We Do Not Know Which Amendments Will Be Considered
While the list of proposed amendments sought by the states in their applications can be examined by the public (need link to applications) this list can in no way be considered to limit a convention before it begins. Just as Congress can examine other amendment issues after an election, so can the convention. Just like Congress a member of a convention (a delegate) must propose the amendment to the convention. The applications of the states will be considered having already been submitted. The reason for this is unless the application is dealt with by the convention and disposed of in some manner it could be argued it is still valid and therefore if enough are ignored by the convention and since the number of applications well exceeds the minimum number required to call a convention and once reached require no additional applications, a second, third or fourth convention is mandated. To avoid this the convention needs to deal with all applications thus rendering the number of submitted applications for future convention back to zero. Thus while the state applications have a leg up so to speak in that they will be considered the practical effect of this is null as delegates are not limited by the states to only consider those applications. These applications will become “old business” and any other proposals “new business.” The only stipulation will be, of course, that any issue or subject dealt with in “old business” may not be readdressed in “new” business. This is standard practice in almost all parliamentary proceedings. The fact is that nearly all political issues of today have already been submitted by the states, in some cases, as much as a century ago. Thus, there will be little “new” business for the convention to consider because the “old” business will address nearly all topics.