Images of Article V Applications
Acknowledgements and Thanks:
FOAVC would like to thank and acknowledge the work of attorney Lynn M. Boughey and the late Senior Federal District Court Judge Bruce Van Sickle for their part in helping to bring these applications to public light. In year 1990, Mr. Boughey and Judge Van Sickle co-authored: "Lawful and Peaceful Revolution: Article V and Congress' Present Duty to Call a Convention for Proposing Amendments" in the Hamlin Law Review. Their article has served as the primary source material in helping FOAVC locate the state applications requesting an Article V Convention (within the Congressional Records).
We would also like to thank Dr. John Arnold and his staff at NICOM, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia for their assistance in gathering these applications from the onsite National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring Hundreds of Article V Applications From 49 of all 50 states:
When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article V’s option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.
As part of FOAVC’s project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as "memorials" from the states. Congress has referred these "memorials" to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.
Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:
g 03369 Yr 1929-Summary 35 Article V Applications from 35 different states
But unlike the state ratification actions, that can also be found scattered through the CR pages along with convention applications, the latter have never been recorded and tabulated. In other words, Congress has never pursued any process setting the stage for a decision to honor the requests by states for an Article V Convention. The applications are merely published, ignored and forgotten. The public has had no effective and detailed information on the entire scope of state applications for a convention. No effort has ever been formally made to decide whether the simple numerical constitutional requirement for a convention has been satisfied. Hence, there has never been an Article V Convention even though the constitutional requirement for one has more than been satisfied.
The monumental difference between congressional handling of memorials regarding ratification versus a convention shows that Congress only respects one of the two methods specified in Article V for proposing constitutional amendments: proposals coming from Congress but not from a convention of state delegates. In acting this way Congress has intentionally violated the Constitution and the intent of the Founders to provide an alternative to Congress making amendment proposals. They anticipated that Congress might not propose amendments that the public would embrace and that Americans could lose trust in the federal government and need a way to circumvent it.
Lists:
Sorted Lists of Most Article V Applications (discovered to date)
IMPORTANT:
Some of the applications (below)
may be for the same Article V application, even though the
application may appear on a different date and/or page of the Congressional
Records.
This is NOT an attempt to inflate the total number of Article V
applications, but merely an effort to display ALL Article V
applications. It is often difficult to determine whether subsequent Article
V applications are to reaffirm a previous application, or a new Article
V application.
There are several sources of reference
that have been complied over many years that list different applications by the
states for an Article V Convention, but none have ever provided all of the actual texts of
the applications in one place as FOAVC is attempting to do today. None, except the work done by
attorney Lynn M. Boughey and the late Senior Federal District Court Judge Bruce
Van Sickle, have listed the source of their
references (e.g. the congressional citations). However, these
references appear valid and we will attempt to locate most (if not all) of them.
Again, we have elected
to provide ALL of the information available regarding ALL Article V applications said or
known to exist, which include the 1973 American Bar Association Report released
by the ABA and the work of several authors listed by the ABA in that report.
These applications are distinguished below by a superscript: 2
Another source of material is provided by references contained in the
book, "Constitutional Brinksmanship, Amending the Constitution by National
Convention" by Russell L. Caplan (1988).
These references are
distinguished below by a superscript: 1
Other applications which are believed to exist, but a copy of the
application has not yet been found, are
distinguished below by a superscript: 3
In addition, there are no reliable references for any
applications submitted by the states from the period of 1989 to the present.
FOAVC is aware of reports of these applications but has no congressional
reference at present to locate them. We will continue to try to locate
these applications.
The MOST important fact is
NOT the total number of Article V applications (e.g. over 400,
or more, etc.).
The MOST important fact is
that ONLY ONE Article V application is required from
each of 34 different states to require Congress to call an Article
V Convention, and 49 of all 50 of the states
have already filed at least ONE Article V application.
And while there is nothing in the
143 words of the single sentence in
Article V about recognizing rescissions, or any same-issue
requirements, or any expiration time-limits, even IF rescissions are
excluded, there are still 38 (or more) different states that have filed
Article V Applications (which is more than the 34 states
needed to require Congress to call an Article V Convention).
Any question regarding the intent of the applications or the original interpretation of the obligation of Congress to call an Article V Convention can be easily settled by simply reading the 1789 application from the state of Virginia: General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00257-258 Yr 1789 , Pg 00259-00259 , and Pg 00261-00262 The application clearly calls for proposing amendments (emphasis underlined in green) and the discussion by the members of Congress following the submission of the application afterwards is clear. Congress must call an Article V Convention; it has no authority to even debate the issue and the basis of the call is a two-thirds application by the states.
Hundreds of Article V Applications from 49 of all 50 states (click on links below to view an image and click on the image to enlarge it (depending on browser); NOTE: CR=Congressional Record, Pg=Page, Yr=Year):