FOAVC

October 23, 2016

Congress Reaches 34 AVC Count

Finally! As of October, 2016 Congress finally reached a count of 34 applying states for an Article V Convention call. The 34 states comprising the committee list can be found here. A map showing the applying states appears at the bottom of this article.

For months the House Judiciary Committee has been gathering what amounts to an official list of applying states for an Article V Convention call. As we explain elsewhere so-called rescissions by any state do not count as there is no provision in the Constitution which permits states to "rescind" applications. Further federal law prohibits members of Congress from removing federal public record. Therefore all state applications are still valid and in full force.

Indeed the full public record of state applications shows the states have submitted sufficient applications to cause several convention calls. Based on the total number of applications in the public recordand the fact the committee has failed to record over 130 state applications thus far in its collection, it may be some time before the committee produces a totally accurate and complete list of state applications. The committee has been releasing about 12 new state applications each month.

The committee, for example, skipped the year 1979 entirely. The public record showed that in 1979, seven states (Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington, and Iowa) submitted applications for an Article V Convention. In late September the committee count of applying states stood at 31. Instead of recording the 1979 applications the committee continued backwards in the records. The result was the same but with different states. By going back from 1973 to 1963 the committee recorded the applications of Iowa, Indiana and New York thus completing the necessary set of 34 applications.

Between the years 2016-1973 the committee has failed to record 124 applications thus far showing in the public record. These 124 state applications not counted by the committee include all of the states in the Union except for 12 states: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. Thus, at least one more set of applications awaits the committee. More....

June 4, 2016

Messer Introduces AVC Official List Legislation

By Bill Walker

In a May 24, 2016 press release Indiana Republican Congressman Luke Messer announced the submission of a historic piece of legislation in Congress. After being signed into law H.R. 5306 will create the first official list of state Article V Convention applications in United States history.

The bill enjoys wide bi-partisan support in Congress. Supporters include: Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO); Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL); House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); the Judiciary Subcommittee Chair on the Constitution and Civil Justice Trent Franks (R-AZ); the Rules Subcommittee Chair on the Rules and Organization of the House Steve Stivers (R-OH); Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL); and Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX).

In 2015 Congressman Stivers introduced a rule change in the House of Representatives (House Rule Section 3c) which created a collection of Article V Convention applications through the House Judiciary Committee but not an official list. This was the first time in United States history Congress created any process for counting state applications. Before the rule was implemented, the official count of state applications by Congress stood at zero. In the two years since rule was instigated the committee has managed to gather 37 applications.

According to the FOAVC website, which, for the first time in U.S. history gathered the state applications into a single list in 2008-09, as of May 28, 2016, 49 states have submitted 573 applications to Congress dating back to 1789. At its current rate of collection, the judiciary committee will require 30 more years to gather all the applications into a single list assuming the rule is renewed by the House at the beginning of each new session of Congress, by no means a certainty. Congressman Messer’s legislation creates a permanent solution to the issue of cataloging Article V applications by formalizing the process under federal law and creating a process whereby the applications will be gathered by the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) from its archival records in two years.

According to Congressional Research Service (CRS) report R42592 (July 10, 2012), “Between 1973 and 1992, 22 bills and resolutions to enact congressional procedures that would be implemented in response to a successful call for an Article V Convention were introduced in the House of Representatives, while 17 were introduced in the Senate.” Not one of the proposed legislation contained any procedure to collect the state applications and create an official government list of applications in order to serve as the official basis for a convention call. Without such a provision not one of these proposed legislations could actually cause a convention call to occur because there was no official basis for Congress to make a convention call. As a result of this oversight by Congress, throughout U.S. history, a total chaotic mess of hundreds of applications has been allowed to accumulate in the files of NARA making them constitutionally useless.

The CRS report also stated, “Congress has addressed the convention issue with study and legislative proposals in the past, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, when it seemed possible that enough states would petition for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment.” The absolute need for an official list becomes bluntly obvious when it is realized according to officials records of Congress (which were used by FOAVC to create its list and are available to Congress at all times) the states have already submitted sufficient applications to cause TEN convention calls and in so far as a balanced budget amendment is concerned sufficient applications to cause a convention call were reached in 1979.

The major difference between Congressman Messer’s bill and previous proposed legislation is Congressman Messer’s bill requires NARA to gather the applications from its files, an action NARA has previously refused to do. Both I and Congressman Messer requested for NARA to voluntarily produce the necessary application list but were refused late last year. NARA asserted its interpretation of federal law as well as bureaucratic inconvenience as the basis for refusing to permit Congress to obey the Constitution.

In its basic form the official list will resemble the FOAVC list. Like the FOAVC list it will be published on the Internet through the two judiciary committees of Congress. The electronic list will present textual copies of the applications just like the FOAVC list. Under the terms of the proposed legislation NARA is obligated to use all means to locate all “missing” applications not found in the NARA files but which evidence shows do exist. Such evidence of course includes any application showing on the FOAVC list or in state records. The bill requires NARA to submit a report to Congress to explain “why” official state applications sent from state legislatures to Congress could be missing from government files.

Of course Congress cannot know how this will all officially play out when the list is completed two years after enactment but everyone (including Congress) already knows because of the FOAVC list. Thus the FOAVC list becomes a checklist for the government. This checklist also means NARA will be able to proceed at a much faster pace to complete the task assigned them meaning it may take less than two years to complete. The FOAVC list gives the date and location of the state application in the Congressional Record meaning NARA will know where to look in its files. Hence, knowing which box to open will speed the process immensely.

Preparing this proposed legislation was not an easy achievement. I have been at work with Congressman Messer and his staff since last October to bring about this widely supported legislation. While the scope of the bill is quite narrow—creation of an official list of applying states and the date they applied—it still required countless hours of work to create its few pages. As with all legislation, contrary to popular belief, proposed congressional laws are read repeatedly and parsed literally by the word if necessary by numerous individuals in Congress in order to produce the exact intent and purpose of the proposed law.

Compromise is always the word with Congress which is why many have said whenever someone wants a piece of legislation proposed in Congress they must be prepared to accept not getting all that they set out to get. Several months ago I submitted a proposed convention call to Congress. Aware of the compromise adage I did not expect my proposal would be accepted carte blanche by Congress. Instead it was intended to serve as template presenting the various issues that a convention call must address. As part of my proposal based on historic, legal, constitutional and political reasons I sought the creation of an official public electronic list of all state applications using an alphanumeric designation system, gathered by NARA, but managed by the clerical staff of Congress. All I got in the Congressman’s proposed legislation was the creation of an official public electronic list of all state applications using an alphanumeric designation system, gathered by NARA, but managed by the clerical staff of Congress.

Nearly all of the major Article V interest groups and several individuals in the Article V Convention movement have come together to support of this bill. This really is no surprise. Without an official list there can never be a convention call. The basis of all other groups in the Article V Convention movement (other than FOAVC) is an amendment proposal or proposals. No call, no amendment proposal, no donations, no reason for the group. At least on this issue, (and maybe from now on if these groups finally realize it is politically smarter to work together toward the common goal of getting a convention call rather than squabble over such issues as rescissions, same subject and so forth when these issues have already been decided long ago by the courts meaning Congress will use that determination to make its decision) the groups appear ready to bury the hatchet and get this legislation passed in Congress.

The mainstream press and the ever present opposition to an Article V Convention, the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society (JBS) all has thus far been silent. I’ve yet to find a single news story about the Congressman’s proposed legislation. It could be all realize the need for the law is so obvious there is no basis for a protest and thus there is no real news story. Obviously, before any action regarding a convention call can occur Congress has to know how many states have officially applied and how many times this has happened; hence the need for a list. Even JBS and Eagle Forum will be hard pressed to find a reason why Congress should not know whether it must call a convention and obey the Constitution.

Besides a letter of support from FOAVC Congressman Messer has received letters of support from the American Legislative Council (ALEC), the Assembly of State Legislatures, Compact for America, Compact for a Balanced Budget, Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, and Robert Natelson.

The official list will lay the groundwork for research by both states and the general public as to the issues the conventions will address. This research will fuel a massive political debate on the fundamental policies of this nation which, of course, are enshrined in our Constitution. It will help solve some of our national problems by providing a solution rather than endless debate. It will vent a lot of the pent up anger in this nation and direct it to a positive result. It will not divide as so much of current politics does now but unify because all realize an actual solution to a problem can occur. That is what is missing in today’s politics—an actual result at the end of all this debate—and a convention provides the means to actually accomplish something. I believe people will feel a lot better about our country and our form of government when they realize they are empowered to make decisions about it rather than it making decisions about them. And finally, it will be a historic event—for the first time in 238 years the United States will be operating under the United States Constitution—the entire United States Constitution with no asterisk beside it.

March 6, 2016

It would be wonderful if, on hearing the news Congress is obligated to call TEN Article V Conventions, Convention of States, Compact for America and Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (among others) would publicly say something like, “We eagerly welcome the news that public record proves Congress is obligated to call, not one, but TEN Article V Conventions and we look forward to the first one!” won’t come to mind.

But don’t hold your breath.

The fact is these dedicated “same subject” directed convention maniacs are mesmerized. No matter the record, or the facts—even if those facts benefit what they want to achieve—they ignore them. So they all continue seeking new state applications in order to achieve the magical 34 applications required by Article V based on a bogus theory. The fact the states have already reached this threshold TEN times is ignored.

Public record proves Congress is now required to call TEN Article V Conventions. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm. I have always said I estimated Congress was required to call between six and eight conventions based on the number of applications, the number of applying states and the number of times those states had repeatedly submitted applications to Congress. Given the terms of Article V (one application per state, call a convention whenever a set of two thirds of the state legislatures apply) it seemed fairly obvious multiple conventions were mandated. So I estimated between six and eight conventions owed. Only recently however were the public records examined and the results summarized: I was wrong. There are TEN conventions mandated by the applications!!!

If you accept the bogus theory of “same subject” directed convention as the basis of a convention call like the above groups then the public record (www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm) shows at least FOUR amendment subjects have reached the two thirds threshold required by Article V. All the above groups are charter members of the “same subject” directed convention theory, a theory long on conjecture but short on facts. Thus the fact all seek a balanced budget amendment and the states have already submitted the necessary applications for such a convention (IF “same subject” were the correct method of count) is ignored. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Same_Subject_Convention.htm .

These people are so disconnected with political reality that when the facts of public record PROVE what they seek has already been achieved and what they believe in (same subject) is totally wrong, they ignore the facts and continue if nothing has happened. The problem is other concerned organizations cannot ignore this public record nor other facts about a “same subject” directed convention nor Supreme Court rulings nor public law nor anything else which might be described as official public record meaning these bogus ideas of “same subject” directed convention must and will ignored by them when they make their decisions about an Article V Convention.

Some of the facts surrounding the applications make the assertions of the above groups laughable. Their assertions prove how out of touch they really are. For example, the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force claims “27 states” have submitted applications for a convention call. The public record shows the BBA Task Force is slightly behind the times. This record proves the necessary 34 applications to cause a convention call (assuming again acceptance of the “same subject” theory which again is a bogus theory) on the subject of a balanced budget was reached in 1983! The record is even more laughable if the correct method of count is used. By 1982 NINE Conventions were mandated meaning it was then possible to present the issue of a balanced budget amendment at convention NINE times.

Even the John Birch Society (JBS), a major opponent of an Article V Convention, looks like idiots in light of the public record. The dream of every JBS member is the repeal of the 16th Amendment—Federal Income Tax. The necessary applications needed to achieve their goal were reached in 1989—despite their campaign to stop an Article V Convention. In short, they were busy trying to defeat their most prized political goal and despite their best efforts, it was achieved anyway.

Speaking of the JBS campaign here’s the biggest laugh. The numeric count of state applications, which is the count of applying states with no other terms or conditions, and is what Article V specifies as the basis for a convention call, proves that prior to the start of the JBS campaign in 1983 to stop an Article V Convention, the states had submitted SEVEN sets of state applications for a convention call. Since 1983 the states have submitted THREE more sets of applications for a total of TEN sets of applications requiring TEN Conventions. Whenever I think of a “successful” political campaign I can assure you the JBS campaign to stop an Article V Convention won’t come to mind.

As to “same subject” directed conventions; the issues surrounding this bogus theory of convention tabulation should make any politically sane person (and I realize I might have said an oxymoron) cringe. I doubt anyone in the above groups will heed this message, but as I’ve said before, as the political reality of actually holding a convention begins to manifest itself, the blast furnace of the amendment process will begin to melt away such bogus ideas as “same subject,” “rescissions” and other such baloney reducing them to pools of irrelevancy. Political groups that cling to irrelevancy fade away. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Same_Subject_Convention.htm .

What about the JBS assertion of rescission of applications affecting the public record of applications or that the 1787 Convention was a “runaway” and therefore a convention called under the terms of Article V should not be called? More horse manure which all of the groups above devour. No wonder these groups are in a fantasy world—they take their information from a declared opponent of the very thing they hope to achieve then wonder why it is so difficult to achieve what they want. The JBS assertion of rescission is forbidden by federal criminal law (a law which predates all so-called “rescissions”). The latter assertion of “runaway” convention is refuted by an official vote of Congress which determined years ago the 1787 convention acted entirely within the bounds of the call issued by Congress in 1787. In other words: there never was a runaway convention. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Rescissions.htm and www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Runaway_Convention.htm.

Things are changing regarding an Article V Convention. While these records may not be the game changer they are the herald of events yet to come. It is time to separate fantasy from fact; reality from fiction; accuracy from error or more correctly, outright lying. Soon accuracy of information will become paramount in the Article V movement. Those groups who become accurate and rely on accurate information will remain. Those who do not will perish. It’s that simple. These groups will soon face, for them, a hard choice: either be accurate, accept the public record and make political choices based on that public record or remain as you are, make your decisions based on some fantasy theory which has no legal or constitutional standing and fall into the political abyss from which there is never a return.

UPDATE: March 7, 2015: A letter to House of Representatives Legal Counsel Kirk Boyle demanding publication in the list of applications currently being gathered by the House Judiciary Committee was recently sent by Bill Walker of FOAVC. Publication of applications by the committee have apparently stalled at a count of ten applications. The letter noted per the request of Mr. Boyle in July, 2013, the April, 2013 letter Dan Marks was sent to the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Walker’s letter pointed out Mr. Marks’ letter contained 42 states applications from 42 states in the form of published Congressional Record. As the records are already a matter of public record there is no basis not to publish them nor can they be referred to as “purported” applications having already been approved and certified as public record. Mr. Walker pointed out for members of the committee to withhold such information is a violation of federal law and gave the committee a deadline by which to either publish the applications in their list or face being reported for violation of federal criminal law.

UPDATE: January 29, 2015: The Clerk of the House of Representatives today published the first state application for an Article V Convention pursuit to the new House Rules passed on January 6, 2015. The application came from the state of Illinois. The House site located at: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorials.aspx will list the date of the application and the state. One down, 765 to go. The text of the application can be viewed at: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorial-pdfs/2015/Memorial-201501-IL.pdf . FOAVC will continue to publish its more complete list for a period of time until it is clear the House has "caught up" on its 238 years obligation of counting applications.

With a quiet addition to House rules on January 6, 2015 the House of Representatives began for the first time in history an official process for tabulation of state applications for an Article V Convention. This historic event went entirely unnoticed by the mainstream media as has been the case for all AVC events leaving one to wonder if the press will even cover a convention when it is called. Under newly enacted House rule Section 3 (c) “Separate Orders Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials submitted pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States” the rule, proposed by Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) was among several rule changes for the new 114th House of Representative which passed by on a party line vote of 234-172 with all but four Republicans favoring the new House rules. More...

Sibley Files Federal AVC Lawsuit Against Congress

April 12, 2015

Montgomery Blair Sibley, an attorney based in Maryland, became the second person in United States history to file a federal lawsuit against members of Congress for failure to call an Article V Convention as required by Article V of the United States Constitution with the filing of a federal complaint in Washington, DC. The first person to file this type of lawsuit was the author of this article who filed two cases, Walker v United States in 2000 and Walker v Members of Congress is 2004. The latter suit was appealed to the Supreme Court.

As announced in his blog Sibley filed his suit on April 9, 2015 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division. The defendants in the case are Majority leader Mitch McConnell of the United States Senate and John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus by the court requiring Congress to call an Article V Convention. It requests an advisory jury trial rather than a decision by the court itself. According to Mr. Sibley, the Superior Court was chosen as the court of choice because “it is an Article I federal court where ‘standing” is not a legal bar to the claim.”

In the past the federal government has asserted standing, or lack of the right to sue, as the basis to deny any lawsuit filed requiring Congress to obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention. However, the latest Supreme Court ruling made in 1939, Coleman v Miller (the basis of the court rulings made in the two Walker lawsuits) states that any court ruling regarding the amendatory process in the Constitution is an “advisory” opinion. Advisory opinions do not require standing on the part of the plaintiff bringing the suit. Moreover the decision clearly states that while Congress has “exclusive” control over the amendment process, nevertheless, it is required to obey the Constitution. Article V gives no option to Congress on calling a convention if the states apply meaning Congress is peremptorily required to call the convention. It has been referred to by the Founders as “peremptory.”

In his complaint Mr. Montgomery lists 35 states which have submitted applications for a convention call. The Constitution mandates a convention call if two thirds of the state legislatures submit applications meaning 34 states must submit applications. Article V only requires applications by the states for a convention call to occur. It does not require submission of the same application from all states nor does it require the applications be for the same amendment subject. In all, 49 states have submitted a total of 766 applications for a convention call. To date, all applications have been ignored by Congress which, until recently, had not even bothered to tabulate the applications for purposes of counting, a necessary step to occur before a call can be issued.

According to court rules, the government has 60 days in which to respond to the complaint. FOAVC will publish updates to this story as they occur.

NEWS / UPDATES: As events in several stories on this site are frequently changing links to the latest updated information will be posted here with appropriate titles. Be sure to check this reference each time you visit this site for the latest news on the Article V Convention. October 23, 2016: Congress Reaches 34 AVC Count October 14, 2016: Proposed COS Amendments Sent to Congress September 27, 2016: COS Publishes Proposed Amendments August 14, 2016: Listen to the pod-cast of Bill Walker on the TRP Show! March 27, 2016: Government Responds to Sibley March 20, 2016: Sibley Appeal Slows Awaiting Government Response February 14, 2016: Appeal Underway in Sibley Lawsuit; FOAVC Presents New Feature January 16, 2016: Court Dismisses Sibley; Appeal Underway December 27, 2015: NARA Terminates Article V Convention December 8, 2015: Sibley Rebuts Gov't; Smith Files Reconsideration November 29, 2015: Sibley's Olive Branch Letter Spurned November 15, 2015: Plethora of AVC Activity Marks First Week in November October 29, 2015: Sibley Files First Papers in Superior Court; Government Seeks Censorship October 18, 2015: Sibley Wins First Round in AVC Lawsuit August 3, 2015: Natelson Lays AVC Rules Egg July 11, 2015: Sibley Files Final Response July 4, 2015: Filing Fly in Sibley Suit as Court Deadline nears June 26, 2015: Court Signals Bias in Sibley Lawsuit June 21, 2015: Flurry of Motions, Responses Marks latest Events in Sibley lawsuit June 14, 2015: Congress Defies Constitution May 31, 2015: FOAVC Presents New AVC Feature Congress Signals Intent to Disobey Constitution May 16, 2015: DOJ acknowledges receipt of AG Letter	October 23, 2016 Congress Reaches 34 AVC Count Finally! As of October, 2016 Congress finally reached a count of 34 applying states for an Article V Convention call. The 34 states comprising the committee list can be found here. A map showing the applying states appears at the bottom of this article. For months the House Judiciary Committee has been gathering what amounts to an official list of applying states for an Article V Convention call. As we explain elsewhere so-called rescissions by any state do not count as there is no provision in the Constitution which permits states to "rescind" applications. Further federal law prohibits members of Congress from removing federal public record. Therefore all state applications are still valid and in full force. Indeed the full public record of state applications shows the states have submitted sufficient applications to cause several convention calls. Based on the total number of applications in the public recordand the fact the committee has failed to record over 130 state applications thus far in its collection, it may be some time before the committee produces a totally accurate and complete list of state applications. The committee has been releasing about 12 new state applications each month. The committee, for example, skipped the year 1979 entirely. The public record showed that in 1979, seven states (Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington, and Iowa) submitted applications for an Article V Convention. In late September the committee count of applying states stood at 31. Instead of recording the 1979 applications the committee continued backwards in the records. The result was the same but with different states. By going back from 1973 to 1963 the committee recorded the applications of Iowa, Indiana and New York thus completing the necessary set of 34 applications. Between the years 2016-1973 the committee has failed to record 124 applications thus far showing in the public record. These 124 state applications not counted by the committee include all of the states in the Union except for 12 states: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. Thus, at least one more set of applications awaits the committee. More.... June 4, 2016 Messer Introduces AVC Official List Legislation By Bill Walker In a May 24, 2016 press release Indiana Republican Congressman Luke Messer announced the submission of a historic piece of legislation in Congress. After being signed into law H.R. 5306 will create the first official list of state Article V Convention applications in United States history. The bill enjoys wide bi-partisan support in Congress. Supporters include: Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO); Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL); House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); the Judiciary Subcommittee Chair on the Constitution and Civil Justice Trent Franks (R-AZ); the Rules Subcommittee Chair on the Rules and Organization of the House Steve Stivers (R-OH); Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL); and Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). In 2015 Congressman Stivers introduced a rule change in the House of Representatives (House Rule Section 3c) which created a collection of Article V Convention applications through the House Judiciary Committee but not an official list. This was the first time in United States history Congress created any process for counting state applications. Before the rule was implemented, the official count of state applications by Congress stood at zero. In the two years since rule was instigated the committee has managed to gather 37 applications. According to the FOAVC website, which, for the first time in U.S. history gathered the state applications into a single list in 2008-09, as of May 28, 2016, 49 states have submitted 573 applications to Congress dating back to 1789. At its current rate of collection, the judiciary committee will require 30 more years to gather all the applications into a single list assuming the rule is renewed by the House at the beginning of each new session of Congress, by no means a certainty. Congressman Messer’s legislation creates a permanent solution to the issue of cataloging Article V applications by formalizing the process under federal law and creating a process whereby the applications will be gathered by the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) from its archival records in two years. According to Congressional Research Service (CRS) report R42592 (July 10, 2012), “Between 1973 and 1992, 22 bills and resolutions to enact congressional procedures that would be implemented in response to a successful call for an Article V Convention were introduced in the House of Representatives, while 17 were introduced in the Senate.” Not one of the proposed legislation contained any procedure to collect the state applications and create an official government list of applications in order to serve as the official basis for a convention call. Without such a provision not one of these proposed legislations could actually cause a convention call to occur because there was no official basis for Congress to make a convention call. As a result of this oversight by Congress, throughout U.S. history, a total chaotic mess of hundreds of applications has been allowed to accumulate in the files of NARA making them constitutionally useless. The CRS report also stated, “Congress has addressed the convention issue with study and legislative proposals in the past, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, when it seemed possible that enough states would petition for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment.” The absolute need for an official list becomes bluntly obvious when it is realized according to officials records of Congress (which were used by FOAVC to create its list and are available to Congress at all times) the states have already submitted sufficient applications to cause TEN convention calls and in so far as a balanced budget amendment is concerned sufficient applications to cause a convention call were reached in 1979. The major difference between Congressman Messer’s bill and previous proposed legislation is Congressman Messer’s bill requires NARA to gather the applications from its files, an action NARA has previously refused to do. Both I and Congressman Messer requested for NARA to voluntarily produce the necessary application list but were refused late last year. NARA asserted its interpretation of federal law as well as bureaucratic inconvenience as the basis for refusing to permit Congress to obey the Constitution. In its basic form the official list will resemble the FOAVC list. Like the FOAVC list it will be published on the Internet through the two judiciary committees of Congress. The electronic list will present textual copies of the applications just like the FOAVC list. Under the terms of the proposed legislation NARA is obligated to use all means to locate all “missing” applications not found in the NARA files but which evidence shows do exist. Such evidence of course includes any application showing on the FOAVC list or in state records. The bill requires NARA to submit a report to Congress to explain “why” official state applications sent from state legislatures to Congress could be missing from government files. Of course Congress cannot know how this will all officially play out when the list is completed two years after enactment but everyone (including Congress) already knows because of the FOAVC list. Thus the FOAVC list becomes a checklist for the government. This checklist also means NARA will be able to proceed at a much faster pace to complete the task assigned them meaning it may take less than two years to complete. The FOAVC list gives the date and location of the state application in the Congressional Record meaning NARA will know where to look in its files. Hence, knowing which box to open will speed the process immensely. Preparing this proposed legislation was not an easy achievement. I have been at work with Congressman Messer and his staff since last October to bring about this widely supported legislation. While the scope of the bill is quite narrow—creation of an official list of applying states and the date they applied—it still required countless hours of work to create its few pages. As with all legislation, contrary to popular belief, proposed congressional laws are read repeatedly and parsed literally by the word if necessary by numerous individuals in Congress in order to produce the exact intent and purpose of the proposed law. Compromise is always the word with Congress which is why many have said whenever someone wants a piece of legislation proposed in Congress they must be prepared to accept not getting all that they set out to get. Several months ago I submitted a proposed convention call to Congress. Aware of the compromise adage I did not expect my proposal would be accepted carte blanche by Congress. Instead it was intended to serve as template presenting the various issues that a convention call must address. As part of my proposal based on historic, legal, constitutional and political reasons I sought the creation of an official public electronic list of all state applications using an alphanumeric designation system, gathered by NARA, but managed by the clerical staff of Congress. All I got in the Congressman’s proposed legislation was the creation of an official public electronic list of all state applications using an alphanumeric designation system, gathered by NARA, but managed by the clerical staff of Congress. Nearly all of the major Article V interest groups and several individuals in the Article V Convention movement have come together to support of this bill. This really is no surprise. Without an official list there can never be a convention call. The basis of all other groups in the Article V Convention movement (other than FOAVC) is an amendment proposal or proposals. No call, no amendment proposal, no donations, no reason for the group. At least on this issue, (and maybe from now on if these groups finally realize it is politically smarter to work together toward the common goal of getting a convention call rather than squabble over such issues as rescissions, same subject and so forth when these issues have already been decided long ago by the courts meaning Congress will use that determination to make its decision) the groups appear ready to bury the hatchet and get this legislation passed in Congress. The mainstream press and the ever present opposition to an Article V Convention, the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society (JBS) all has thus far been silent. I’ve yet to find a single news story about the Congressman’s proposed legislation. It could be all realize the need for the law is so obvious there is no basis for a protest and thus there is no real news story. Obviously, before any action regarding a convention call can occur Congress has to know how many states have officially applied and how many times this has happened; hence the need for a list. Even JBS and Eagle Forum will be hard pressed to find a reason why Congress should not know whether it must call a convention and obey the Constitution. Besides a letter of support from FOAVC Congressman Messer has received letters of support from the American Legislative Council (ALEC), the Assembly of State Legislatures, Compact for America, Compact for a Balanced Budget, Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, and Robert Natelson. The official list will lay the groundwork for research by both states and the general public as to the issues the conventions will address. This research will fuel a massive political debate on the fundamental policies of this nation which, of course, are enshrined in our Constitution. It will help solve some of our national problems by providing a solution rather than endless debate. It will vent a lot of the pent up anger in this nation and direct it to a positive result. It will not divide as so much of current politics does now but unify because all realize an actual solution to a problem can occur. That is what is missing in today’s politics—an actual result at the end of all this debate—and a convention provides the means to actually accomplish something. I believe people will feel a lot better about our country and our form of government when they realize they are empowered to make decisions about it rather than it making decisions about them. And finally, it will be a historic event—for the first time in 238 years the United States will be operating under the United States Constitution—the entire United States Constitution with no asterisk beside it. March 6, 2016 Congress Owes US TEN Conventions!!! By Bill Walker It would be wonderful if, on hearing the news Congress is obligated to call TEN Article V Conventions, Convention of States, Compact for America and Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (among others) would publicly say something like, “We eagerly welcome the news that public record proves Congress is obligated to call, not one, but TEN Article V Conventions and we look forward to the first one!” won’t come to mind. But don’t hold your breath. The fact is these dedicated “same subject” directed convention maniacs are mesmerized. No matter the record, or the facts—even if those facts benefit what they want to achieve—they ignore them. So they all continue seeking new state applications in order to achieve the magical 34 applications required by Article V based on a bogus theory. The fact the states have already reached this threshold TEN times is ignored. Public record proves Congress is now required to call TEN Article V Conventions. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm. I have always said I estimated Congress was required to call between six and eight conventions based on the number of applications, the number of applying states and the number of times those states had repeatedly submitted applications to Congress. Given the terms of Article V (one application per state, call a convention whenever a set of two thirds of the state legislatures apply) it seemed fairly obvious multiple conventions were mandated. So I estimated between six and eight conventions owed. Only recently however were the public records examined and the results summarized: I was wrong. There are TEN conventions mandated by the applications!!! If you accept the bogus theory of “same subject” directed convention as the basis of a convention call like the above groups then the public record (www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm) shows at least FOUR amendment subjects have reached the two thirds threshold required by Article V. All the above groups are charter members of the “same subject” directed convention theory, a theory long on conjecture but short on facts. Thus the fact all seek a balanced budget amendment and the states have already submitted the necessary applications for such a convention (IF “same subject” were the correct method of count) is ignored. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Same_Subject_Convention.htm . These people are so disconnected with political reality that when the facts of public record PROVE what they seek has already been achieved and what they believe in (same subject) is totally wrong, they ignore the facts and continue if nothing has happened. The problem is other concerned organizations cannot ignore this public record nor other facts about a “same subject” directed convention nor Supreme Court rulings nor public law nor anything else which might be described as official public record meaning these bogus ideas of “same subject” directed convention must and will ignored by them when they make their decisions about an Article V Convention. Some of the facts surrounding the applications make the assertions of the above groups laughable. Their assertions prove how out of touch they really are. For example, the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force claims “27 states” have submitted applications for a convention call. The public record shows the BBA Task Force is slightly behind the times. This record proves the necessary 34 applications to cause a convention call (assuming again acceptance of the “same subject” theory which again is a bogus theory) on the subject of a balanced budget was reached in 1983! The record is even more laughable if the correct method of count is used. By 1982 NINE Conventions were mandated meaning it was then possible to present the issue of a balanced budget amendment at convention NINE times. Even the John Birch Society (JBS), a major opponent of an Article V Convention, looks like idiots in light of the public record. The dream of every JBS member is the repeal of the 16th Amendment—Federal Income Tax. The necessary applications needed to achieve their goal were reached in 1989—despite their campaign to stop an Article V Convention. In short, they were busy trying to defeat their most prized political goal and despite their best efforts, it was achieved anyway. Speaking of the JBS campaign here’s the biggest laugh. The numeric count of state applications, which is the count of applying states with no other terms or conditions, and is what Article V specifies as the basis for a convention call, proves that prior to the start of the JBS campaign in 1983 to stop an Article V Convention, the states had submitted SEVEN sets of state applications for a convention call. Since 1983 the states have submitted THREE more sets of applications for a total of TEN sets of applications requiring TEN Conventions. Whenever I think of a “successful” political campaign I can assure you the JBS campaign to stop an Article V Convention won’t come to mind. As to “same subject” directed conventions; the issues surrounding this bogus theory of convention tabulation should make any politically sane person (and I realize I might have said an oxymoron) cringe. I doubt anyone in the above groups will heed this message, but as I’ve said before, as the political reality of actually holding a convention begins to manifest itself, the blast furnace of the amendment process will begin to melt away such bogus ideas as “same subject,” “rescissions” and other such baloney reducing them to pools of irrelevancy. Political groups that cling to irrelevancy fade away. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Same_Subject_Convention.htm . What about the JBS assertion of rescission of applications affecting the public record of applications or that the 1787 Convention was a “runaway” and therefore a convention called under the terms of Article V should not be called? More horse manure which all of the groups above devour. No wonder these groups are in a fantasy world—they take their information from a declared opponent of the very thing they hope to achieve then wonder why it is so difficult to achieve what they want. The JBS assertion of rescission is forbidden by federal criminal law (a law which predates all so-called “rescissions”). The latter assertion of “runaway” convention is refuted by an official vote of Congress which determined years ago the 1787 convention acted entirely within the bounds of the call issued by Congress in 1787. In other words: there never was a runaway convention. See: www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Rescissions.htm and www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Runaway_Convention.htm. Things are changing regarding an Article V Convention. While these records may not be the game changer they are the herald of events yet to come. It is time to separate fantasy from fact; reality from fiction; accuracy from error or more correctly, outright lying. Soon accuracy of information will become paramount in the Article V movement. Those groups who become accurate and rely on accurate information will remain. Those who do not will perish. It’s that simple. These groups will soon face, for them, a hard choice: either be accurate, accept the public record and make political choices based on that public record or remain as you are, make your decisions based on some fantasy theory which has no legal or constitutional standing and fall into the political abyss from which there is never a return. Congress Begins Tabulation of AVC Applications UPDATE: March 7, 2015: A letter to House of Representatives Legal Counsel Kirk Boyle demanding publication in the list of applications currently being gathered by the House Judiciary Committee was recently sent by Bill Walker of FOAVC. Publication of applications by the committee have apparently stalled at a count of ten applications. The letter noted per the request of Mr. Boyle in July, 2013, the April, 2013 letter Dan Marks was sent to the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Walker’s letter pointed out Mr. Marks’ letter contained 42 states applications from 42 states in the form of published Congressional Record. As the records are already a matter of public record there is no basis not to publish them nor can they be referred to as “purported” applications having already been approved and certified as public record. Mr. Walker pointed out for members of the committee to withhold such information is a violation of federal law and gave the committee a deadline by which to either publish the applications in their list or face being reported for violation of federal criminal law. UPDATE: January 29, 2015: The Clerk of the House of Representatives today published the first state application for an Article V Convention pursuit to the new House Rules passed on January 6, 2015. The application came from the state of Illinois. The House site located at: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorials.aspx will list the date of the application and the state. One down, 765 to go. The text of the application can be viewed at: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorial-pdfs/2015/Memorial-201501-IL.pdf . FOAVC will continue to publish its more complete list for a period of time until it is clear the House has "caught up" on its 238 years obligation of counting applications. With a quiet addition to House rules on January 6, 2015 the House of Representatives began for the first time in history an official process for tabulation of state applications for an Article V Convention. This historic event went entirely unnoticed by the mainstream media as has been the case for all AVC events leaving one to wonder if the press will even cover a convention when it is called. Under newly enacted House rule Section 3 (c) “Separate Orders Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials submitted pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States” the rule, proposed by Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) was among several rule changes for the new 114th House of Representative which passed by on a party line vote of 234-172 with all but four Republicans favoring the new House rules. More... Sibley Files Federal AVC Lawsuit Against Congress April 12, 2015 Montgomery Blair Sibley, an attorney based in Maryland, became the second person in United States history to file a federal lawsuit against members of Congress for failure to call an Article V Convention as required by Article V of the United States Constitution with the filing of a federal complaint in Washington, DC. The first person to file this type of lawsuit was the author of this article who filed two cases, Walker v United States in 2000 and Walker v Members of Congress is 2004. The latter suit was appealed to the Supreme Court. As announced in his blog Sibley filed his suit on April 9, 2015 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division. The defendants in the case are Majority leader Mitch McConnell of the United States Senate and John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus by the court requiring Congress to call an Article V Convention. It requests an advisory jury trial rather than a decision by the court itself. According to Mr. Sibley, the Superior Court was chosen as the court of choice because “it is an Article I federal court where ‘standing” is not a legal bar to the claim.” In the past the federal government has asserted standing, or lack of the right to sue, as the basis to deny any lawsuit filed requiring Congress to obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention. However, the latest Supreme Court ruling made in 1939, Coleman v Miller (the basis of the court rulings made in the two Walker lawsuits) states that any court ruling regarding the amendatory process in the Constitution is an “advisory” opinion. Advisory opinions do not require standing on the part of the plaintiff bringing the suit. Moreover the decision clearly states that while Congress has “exclusive” control over the amendment process, nevertheless, it is required to obey the Constitution. Article V gives no option to Congress on calling a convention if the states apply meaning Congress is peremptorily required to call the convention. It has been referred to by the Founders as “peremptory.” In his complaint Mr. Montgomery lists 35 states which have submitted applications for a convention call. The Constitution mandates a convention call if two thirds of the state legislatures submit applications meaning 34 states must submit applications. Article V only requires applications by the states for a convention call to occur. It does not require submission of the same application from all states nor does it require the applications be for the same amendment subject. In all, 49 states have submitted a total of 766 applications for a convention call. To date, all applications have been ignored by Congress which, until recently, had not even bothered to tabulate the applications for purposes of counting, a necessary step to occur before a call can be issued. According to court rules, the government has 60 days in which to respond to the complaint. FOAVC will publish updates to this story as they occur.
AVC Legislative Report While FOAVC has, up to now, published the Article V Convention Legislative Report by Georgia attorney David Guldenschuh, FOAVC can no longer ignore the fact that the report is presenting inaccurate information. For example, the report notes the passage of an application by the state of West Virginia and cites it as the "28th" state to submit an application with the subject of "balanced budget. As shown above in our information on this website, based on information in the Congressional Record which is the governing record of applications as these are the records Congress will use as the basis for a convention call, West Virginia is actually the 43nd State to submit such an application. www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm The Constitution does not require states submit applications on the same amendment subject. Instead, the Constitution only requires 34 (two-thirds) applications by the several states to cause a convention call. There is no limit on the number of times a state may apply or any limit on the number of conventions those sets of applications may cause. www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm . While FOAVC will continue to publish the report as it believes it presents the best information regarding current efforts to pass new applications by various political groups (even though it is clear such applications are not required as the Constitution has been satisfied TEN times) we feel duty bound to notify our readers of the fact the list does not reflect the true picture of the state applications and their constitutional effect as it exists today. A discussion of the report and the issues regarding these various groups can be found at www.foavc.org/reference/file62.pdf. The report will be updated as new information is submitted to FOAVC by Mr. Guldenschuh. The latest report is at: www.foavc.org/AVCLPR/07042016 .pdf .	People v Natelson: The FEC Showdown Regulation Vote Signals Fed Decision on Rogue AVC Fiduciary Theory A decision by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) on a petition to change the regulatory definition of elected federal office to include delegates to an Article V Convention has become the battleground to determine whether an Article V Convention will be an open, freely elected convention or is hijacked by well financed special interests bent on making a convention nothing more than an orchestrated showpiece for their own political agenda. The crux of this argument is the Robert Natelson (master/slave) theory. Read more... The First Set of Applications by the States Since the beginning of this nation the states have applied for an Article V Convention at an average rate of one application every four months. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that amendment subject has no bearing on the amendment process. The Constitution only specifies one standard for a convention call--an application from each of two-thirds of the state legislatures. You can view the first application submitted by each state at this link. http://foavc.org/reference/statelist.pdf As the evidence proves by 1911 two-thirds of the states had submitted applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution does not permit nor allow so-called rescissions of the applications. Even if it did, long before a single rescission was submitted (1947 state of Maine to correct a textual error) the states had satisfied the single requirement of the Constitution. You may also read a summation created by long time convention supporter John Guise showing in sequence of application the state, its date of application, the number of states in the union at the time of the application and the number of states needed to cause a convention call. Accordingly, it can be stated that as of Friday, March 13, 1908 with the application of the state of Washington Congress has been obligated to call an Article V Convention as mandated by the United States Constitution. Liberty Amendments Miss the "Mark" In his newly released book, “The Liberty Amendments—Restoring The American Republic” national conservative radio talk show host Mark R. Levin discusses an Article V Convention and offers twelve amendments he believes a convention should propose. To its credit his book has caused a stir of public interest in an Article V Convention. This is no surprise given the fact Americans are totally fed up with the national government and are desperate for a solution—any reasonable solution—so long as it works. Whatever other issues surround Article V, it is irrefutable—amendments work. Unfortunately, Levin’s book is a perfect example of a golden opportunity deliberately perverted to advance a dangerous political agenda having nothing to do with “his” proposed amendments. Combined with the fact the book is woefully inaccurate, misleading and was obsolete before publication Levin’s book is presently worthless—except for the fact, as already noted, it has greatly raised public awareness about an Article V Convention. Read More... Congress Sets State Applications As Zero; Passes Law Mandating Delegates Be Elected In only what can be only described as a kiss off response Kirk Boyle, legal counsel of the House of Representatives responded in a one page letter to Dan Marks' request for an official count of state applications currently recognized by Congress for an Article V Convention call. The sheer volume of applications in question is best appreciated by examination of this map. Mr. Boyle’s response was succinct—number of applying states counted by Congress: zero. Mr. Boyle stated Karen Haas, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Read More...
FAQ Page Link There is a lot more you can learn about an Article V Convention by visiting our FAQ Page! For example: Read About the Phony Burger Letter What happens if Congress doesn't call a convention? Must Applications be on the "same subject"?	A Letter from Thomas E. Brennan, Former Chief Justice of Michigan Click here to read letter...