Indisputable State Applications for Convention

No More State Applications for Convention are Required.


The States have satisfied the required two-thirds numerical threshold (34 States) to call for an
Article V Convention under Article V of the US Constitution. Congress should call an Article V Convention to propose amendments to order. 

ArticleV.org is proud to confirm the research of Friends of Article V Convention and have selected specific standing applications that support the conclusion we arrived at.

Listed in the order they appeared on ArticleV.org’s Facebook wall. Please bear witness to the Standing applications found in the Congressional Record from the states listed below. There are more than the threshold listed and it should be obvious that we are ready to assemble and deliberate ideas for solutions for our modern problems. We hope an era of Constitutional revival is about to begin.


#1 Arizona 1996 Page 1  Page 2 #11 Kentucky 1975
#12 Massachusetts 1931
#13 Maine 1911
#14 Georgia 1832
#15 Michigan 1941
#16 Missouri 1905
#17 Montana 1911
#18 Alabama 1833
#19 Alaska 1982
#20 Florida 2010
#31 Pennsylvania 1943
#32 South Carolina 1833
#33 South Dakota 1989
#34 Wisconsin 1929

#35 Tennessee 1978
#36 Texas 1899 
#37 Virginia 1789 Page 1 Page 2
#38 Washington 1911
#39 West Virginia 1971 Page 1 Page2
#40 Wyoming 1910
#41 Utah 1987
#42 Rhode Island 1977
 The map below illustrates the history of applications for convention from each state by date and for what indented purpose.  Click to zoom in on a state. 

History of Applications By State

**Special thanks to the good people working in cooperation with the Friends of the Article V Convention for researching the Congressional Record at their own expense and for the benefit of all. The entire list of State Applications can be found on their site, http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments


In citing Coleman, in Walker v. United States, which was then reaffirmed in Walker v. Members of Congress, Judge Coughen our placed the convention process of amendment under Congress’ exclusive control relying on that part of Coleman which states:
“The Court here treats the amending process of the Constitution in some respects as subject to judicial construction, in others as subject to the final authority of the Congress. There is no disapproval of the conclusion arrived at in Dillon v. Gloss, that the Constitution impliedly requires that a properly submitted amendment must die unless ratified with a ‘reasonable time.’ Nor does the court now disapprove its prior assumption of power to make such a pronouncement. And it is not made clear that only Congress has constitutional power to determine if there is any such implication in Article V of the Constitution.
Comments