Talk:List of state applications for an Article V Convention

Comment

The heart of this page is complete, but the Roger's Style Counts still need expanding.

I have found a new source of applications in Article V Library, and am checking the data against their records.

Eventually, like maybe this winter, I plan to migrate the existing references to the AVL style and link pages. Utesfan100 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Section on rescission

The section titled "Ability of state legislatures to rescind previous applications to Congress" is redundant. This information is contained in the table (which also included several rescissions from the 1950's and earlier), encoded in the application class. Further, the discussion of the states ability to rescind applications is discussed in "Roger's Style counts," which links to the identical source cited in this section.

The 2010 rescisions will be added to the table, then this section named above will be deleted. Further, the encoding of rescissions will be altered to be a stricken out class, not one in []. Utesfan100 (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on incomplete state legislation

I find it highly unlikely that the activity of all 50 states will be monitored sufficiently to warrant this section. Further, an archive of past legislation is even more unlikely.

While applications with five or more states concurring could warrant a separate thread (and inclusion in the page on attempts to amend the constitutions), making legislation on such applications reasonable on those pages, such information appears to be of little aid to this page.

Certainly this should be lower than the sections on application counts. I will move this section to the end of the article, and if no post is made here in a week justifying the inclusion of this information I will delete it. Utesfan100 (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The following section was removed. It is included here, as it certainly will make collaborating on maintaining this page more efficient.Utesfan100 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete State Legislative Actions in 2011 and 2012

During the 2011 state legislative season, there were four states in which Article V convention applications were approved by one chamber of bicameral legislatures. They are:

• Florida whose Senate on April 28, 2011, approved Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4 ("urging Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States to achieve and maintain a balanced federal budget"); the resolution then died in the Florida House of Representatives;
• Kentucky whose Senate on February 22, 2011, approved Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 134 ("urge Congress to call an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced federal budget"); the resolution then died in a committee of the Kentucky House of Representatives;
• Texas whose Senate on February 23, 2011, approved Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 ("urging the Congress of the United States to propose and submit to the states for ratification a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States and, in the event that Congress does not submit such an amendment on or before December 31, 2011, applying to Congress to call a convention for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to that constitution to provide, in the absence of a national emergency and on a two-thirds vote of Congress, for a federal balanced budget and requesting that the legislatures of each of the several states that compose [sic] the United States apply to Congress to call a convention to propose such an amendment"); the resolution then died in a committee of the Texas House of Representatives; and
• Virginia whose House of Delegates on January 25, 2011, approved House Joint Resolution No. 542 ("making application to the Congress of the United States to call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures"); the resolution then died in a committee of the Virginia Senate. On February 23, 2011, Virginia's House of Delegates likewise approved House Joint Resolution No. 852 ("memorializing the Congress of the United States to adopt legislation requiring a balanced federal budget and to call a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to provide a balanced budget requirement") and, likewise, this resolution died in a committee of the Virginia Senate.

During the 2012 state legislative season, there was one state in which an alleged Article V convention "application" was approved by one chamber of a bicameral legislature. It was:

• Colorado whose House of Representatives on January 19, 2012, approved House Resolution No. 12-1003 ("Concerning an Application under Article V of the United States Constitution to the Congress of the United States to call a Convention for Proposing an Amendment to the United States Constitution to Repeal the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'." [Congressional Public Law No. 111-148]). It should be noted that Colorado's House Resolution No. 12-1003, upon closer inspection, is structurally-flawed inasmuch as that resolution resolves only that the "...House of Representatives of the Sixty-eighth General Assembly..." applies for an Article V convention. Validity as an actual Article V application requires that both chambers of the bicameral Colorado General Assembly so resolve. On its face a unicameral instrument, House Resolution No. 12-1003 was never even transmitted to the Colorado Senate for that body's consideration.

FoAVC

FoAVC has the only verifiable list of state applications since 1990. As such, they are the most reliable source on this data set. The use of the FoAVC data set warrants a statement of their count methodology.

While proper disclaimers as to their agenda and authority to provide interpretations is in order, removal of all references to the best data set on this topic, without a post to this discussion board, seems to propagate an agenda equal and opposite to that of FoAVC. Utesfan100 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they maintain a list of state applications says nothing about their qualifications to make legal arguments about the validity of those applications. Mainstream legal scholars do not support the FOAVC view. It is a fringe view. It does not merit inclusion, unless you can cite mainstream scholars on the subject who support it. Otherwise, including it here is an unwarranted promotion of fringe theories Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories. Until there is something to show that this view is supported by mainstream legal scholars and judges, I am removing it. Aureliuslawyer (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text in question:

FoAVC Application Count

The views of Friends of an Article Five Convention are notable because they have maintained a public record of all known applications for a convention. The views they express are not found in any independent source.

FoAVC contend that Congress should give applications for a convention the same consideration they give the ratification of amendments.

The ratification of the 14th amendment suggests that ratifications can be counted, even when congress has a note of rescissions during the listing process. Further, ratifications made by temporary legislatures, after the previous legislatures were disbanded by the military, can be counted.

The ratification of the 27th amendment suggests that ratifications never expire.

Applying these standards to applications for a convention, 49 states have applications that some future congress could count, if they elected to do so. FoAVC contends this requires a convention to be called presently.

I assume that a publication in the Cooley Law Review should suffice. Utesfan100 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced attribution for these counts from FoAVC to Judge Thomas E. Brennan, former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and founder of the Cooley Law School. Utesfan100 (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the information of all Chief Justice Thomas E. Brennan, is a Co-Founder of FOAVC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout234 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And he does not appear to be the only lone wolf out there. Convention USA Board of Advisors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utesfan100 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

I propose deletion for several reasons: 1. Lack of notability. There have been hundreds of applications for an Article V convention. They are pretty routine. Moreover, none of them have been successful. Tracking them all on a Wikipedia page is a fruitless endeavor.

The fact that there have been hundreds of applications for an article V convention is missing from every civics class I took in my college education. The notability of this fact, and the violation of the way Article V is presented in modern civics classes, is notable. Utesfan100 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Sources: the linked sources are not reliable -- the sources link not to original copies of the congressional record, but to copies of the records maintained by a fringe organization -- FOAVC.Aureliuslawyer (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Aureliuslawyer attempts maintain that because FOAVC shows photographic copies of congressional records which clearly have their reference material on them that they are somehow invalid. For the information of Aureliuslawyer and everyone else, there is no database for copies of the Congressional Record before about 1992. In short, the only way possible to present the material on the Internet if material before that date is to be presented is to take a copy of the material from a hard copy source, in this case, the Congressional Record itself, meaning making a photographic copy of it as there is no other way to copy the material except to make a photographic copy, and then post this copy onto the Internet. Moreover the design of the Internet is such that it is impossible to post anything on the Internet unless it is placed or posted on a select Internet site. Aurelislawyer therefore attempts to attack practicality and reality regarding Internet presentation and attributes this sole method of presentation on the Internet as "fringe." Simply put, there is no other way for FOAVC to present the material in question, except by photographic presentation and on a site of its own creation.

As to Aureliuslawyer who seems to be the only person at Wiki attempting to prevent the publication of this material, stating that the opinion of FOAVC as to the counting of applications is a "fringe" position and that it is not generally accepted by legal scholars, I would suggest he realize that the primary source of FOAVC's statements rests not with acceptance by legal scholars but by official actions of the United States Government. As discussed in the FAQ section of the website, two federal lawsuits were filed in 2000 and again in 2004. The latter, Walker v Members of Congress went to the Supreme Court where under court rules, the United States Solicitor General who represented all members of Congress as attorney of record acknowledged that a convention call was peremptory, that it was based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions, that a sufficient number of applications existed to cause a convention call and that for Congress to refuse to call the convention was a criminal violation of oath of office. As this was an official act of the United States Government done in public record before the Supreme Court, its validity cannot be questioned. Therefore, as FOAVC is quoting official public record, the fact is the legal scholars are in error and FOAVC is not as it is using official government policy as expressed by the legal representative of Congress as the basis of its statements while other legal scholars have or do not.

Further, for the information of Aureliuslawyer, this position of the government is based on earlier statements made both in the Congressional Record and to the Supreme Court in official public records. Thus, any assertion by Aureliuslawyer that the position of FOAVC is "fringe" is entirely bogus as FOAVC is doing no more than simply quoting official government records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout234 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Judge Thomas Brennan is much more authoritative that FoAVC. His work and views suffice for this article. Utesfan100 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I use reliable sources where they can be found (before 1876 for example.) I have been unable to find online records for the congressional record since then. While my research has uncovered several instances where FOAVC misrepresents the applications they link to (for example listing rescission as applications prior the 1970's), I have found nothing to question the validity of the copies of the congressional record they maintain. I also refrain from linking to references that do not contain the application text.

This page should have been started as template, but the wiki skill level of the author is limited. It is not in a final form, and all suggestions for its improvement are welcome. --Utesfan100 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I could take up the entire site to respond to this [first] comment. The fact the applications have not been "successful" is because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution. If the author of the above considers overthrowing our form of government to be "routine" he is wrong. As to being a fruitless endeavor, is the commentator afraid people will learn the truth about applications? What harm is there is showing public record regarding any issue? None that I can see.

Aureliuslawyer who has consistently refused to identify himself and has apparently set on a one-man mission to prevent publication of public record regarding state applications. The links go to photographic copies of actual pages from the Congressional Record. A trip to the library can verify the photos as accurate and complete as to the page shown. The fact FOAVC has collected them is immaterial as to their authenticity. If Aureliuslawyer can provide documented proof that these photos are not authentic copies of the pages in question, let him produce it. For the record there is no reference source that shows the entire congressional record such that links could be made to individual pages except within the last decade when electronic recording began in Congress. Therefore the only means available to show a record is to photocopy and produce that copy on the Internet.

As to the comment regarding rescissions, FOAVC does not assert a rescission is an application. Rather it is public record like any other and is presented so that the public has the full and complete record before them. Withholding such records would be incorrect if the goal is to present the full public record of state applications regarding a convention call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout234 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2011

The comment above refers to the fact that a handful of recissions listed at FoAVC fail to mention they are rescissions, and not applications, in the description. Nebraska's 1953 rescission of their Limited Federal Taxation application is an example. Utesfan100 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer

My name is Bill Walker. I am a co-Founder of Friends of the Article V Convention and am primarily responsible for the gathering of the state applications for a convention call to which this site refers and links to. The images you will see are photographic copies of pages of the Congressional Record and therefore public record. Until gathered by FOAVC, no other single source of reference for this public record existed even in the government.

A single Wikipedia "contributor" has repeatedly attempted to edit and remove all references to this public record and, as the history of this article proves has attempted to remove this disclaimer from this article. Aureliuslawyer has alleged the material does not have an original source. This is false as the material comes straight from the Congressional Record, a clearly recognized original source. He maintains the material is autobiographical and therefore in violation of WP policy. This is not correct. Other than providing my name and membership to FOAVC, I have provided no other information regarding myself, nor will I. The fact I provide my name I believe does not constitute a violation of producing an autobiographical piece. Finally Aureliuslawyer asserts the material presented and the contents of this disclaimer are "fringe" theory. Nothing is further from the truth. Supreme Court rulings, historic record and congressional records clearly disprove this allegation. All such references are on the FOAVC website.

For the record, the author of this article is not a member of FOAVC and has received permission from our organization, as required by WP policy to link to our site. It is the policy of FOAVC that all applications, as well as all other material on our site, is for open public viewing. However, FOAVC disclaims any endorsement of this site nor does it support the conclusions of the table above as to the "counting" of applications.

It is the belief of FOAVC that according to court decisions, federal records and other public documents that all applications are still valid and in effect until acted upon by Congress to call an Article V Convention. Therefore FOAVC disagrees with the conclusions expressed that applications are counted by subject and that any application has been nullified by the passage of any amendment. The expressed purpose of an application according to Article V is to cause Congress to call a convention. All else in the application, until a convention is called, is constitutional dicta. At the time the convention convenes the remainder of the application becomes a petition submitted to the convention for its consideration.

Proof of this assertion is borne out by the first Virginia application and the discussion following it. It is noted that Congress does not the privilege of vote, debate or even the right of committee for state applications. Obviously, if Congress were empowered to consider applications on the basis of subject, they could contrive a means whereby they could reject otherwise valid applications. As they have not such privilege, it is clear the only basis that Congress be so restricted and yet still be sure the two-thirds mandate of Article V is fulfilled before calling, is a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions as such a result is universally understood by all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout234 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2011

This disclaimer appears to not be a standard methodology among Wikipedia pages. Further, the handles of specific wiki authors in articles is strongly not wiki style. Further, list pages typically provide almanac-like data with commentary limited to key like explanations. Much of this disclaimer might be better suited in the Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution page.

The idea that one must count application, without regard for what they contain, seems to counter the intent of many of the submitted applications. To be philosophically consistent, class V (and maybe even class IV) applications should be ruled invalid under a Paulson Style interpretation. FoAVC count these applications, when the class V application clearly state they are to be nullified if a count for a convention not limited to the specific topic is conducted.

It seems to me that FoAVC should be rewarded for their compilation of this public record with a section explaining positively their counting methods and count totals they reach by them. Utesfan100 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor with no prior involvement in this topic. I am going to try to assist the editors working on this page to resolve this dispute. Before I get into the actual dispute, I noticed the claim "and has received permission from our organization, as required by WP policy to link to our site above. Please tell us which Wikipedia policy you believe requires this. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If Utesfan100 is indeed a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, then he would seem to have a conflict of interest and should not be editing this article or talk page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not right either. The guideline you cited (WP:COI) specifically says "If you have a conflict of interest you may propose changes on talk pages". That being said, Utesfan100 you need to stop editing anything related to the Friends of the Article V Convention now. Please read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations and follow the advice in that document. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see that we have a conflict between editors here, and that makes two people who have misquoted a Wikipedia policy or guideline. As I said, I am going to attempt to help you to resolve this conflict, but everybody needs to stop trying to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a club to try to win a fight with, especially when you end up claim that a guideline says the exact opposite of what it actually says. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected; thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Utesfan100 (talk) is FoAVC cofounder but Scout234 (talk • contribs) is. Nevertheless, I wanted to comment on Utesfan100 (talk) suggesting that FoAVC should be rewarded for their compilation of this public record. I have no issue with your opinion as a personal one, but it still doesn't resolve FoAVC as the sole source of the majority of information in this article. If it's true that FoAVC did compile lots of helpful public documents, I'd strongly urge them to submit those to a body qualified to determine their authenticity and usefulness. This might be a history journal, a history department at a known university, a government entity, an interested newspapers, etc. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research nor can conduct any needed peer review.

Either way, I'd like to thank the new editors that joined us. This subject deserves more attention as it's quite possible it'll attract public attention soon. Calexit (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to thank the new editors who have been maintaining this page. I learned about the Convention of States movement by checking in here :) For the record, I have no ties to FoAVC. Their records appear to be the only online source for the text of the congressional records cited by Van Sickle and Boughey. This was published in the Hamline Law Review. Utesfan100 (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Splitting (the article)

I suggested splitting the articles due to its length and also as I see two good candidates as of now:

• Application for an Article V Convention: First let's understand it's nature and then add other related information. Keep in mind that some of that information might be in the related article Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution
• List of state applications for an Article V Convention: This article I guess can continue just to be a list, as it originally claimed to be.

Those are my suggestions for now. Not sure how that would go with the major problems of the sources reliability though. Calexit (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The article definitely needs to be split. It's too long with huge chunks of prose for a list article. Also, I think the way the list is set up is confusing. There should be only one row per state with all the actions by that state listed in that row. The convention calls are counted by the number of states issuing those calls. Listing them in chronological order distorts this and makes it difficult for readers to get an accurate count of the number of states that have issued such calls, which presumably would be a major reason for why they may want to look at such a list. Libertybison (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

While the prose in this article could be trimmed (and this article's formatting refined), splitting (into separate articles) is not necessary. As there is already Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, any content removed from this article that is not already in there can be incorporated into that article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Split -- Calexit, Libertybison, Drdpw, Utesfan100, Aureliuslawyer -- I recognize that WP is not a newspaper, however, it might make sense to split the article into History (an encyclopedic article), and Current, one that will likely have a high rate of editing as states opt in and our and the story unfolds. There is a current list at Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force. It could move or stay there. The source basis of that list is Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which in turn got its data from Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force which has a dog in the fight. Where there are current and independent sources, they are used instead. Rhadow (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree strongly with the idea that the prose should be trimmed, and relevant sections moved to Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. I also think that the counts on that page should be moved here.

The table was designed with all columns sortable. On a desktop site you can sort by state, if desired.

I will begin trimming in a couple weeks, with particular focus on the stubs at the bottom that were never completed. Utesfan100 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just did it.

Also, as there are no citation needed or original research flags in the resulting text, I have removed those flags for the page. Utesfan100 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Foa5c.org -- Broken website

A large number of applications solely rely on the website http://foa5c.org/ as the citation. However, this website appears to be down or otherwise not working. If there is no way to find archived versions of the website citations, a different source should be added (right now, a large number of listed state applications are unsourced because of this). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)