The rules of numeric count are described in Article V of the Constitution. Each state is required to submit only one application ("on the application") to cause a convention call. Whenever two thirds of the state legislatures in the Union submit applications thus meeting the two thirds threshold described in Article V, Congress is required to call a convention ("on the application of two-thirds of the several state legislatures, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."). The states are not limited in the number of times they may apply for a convention call nor in the number of conventions their applications cause.

THEREFORE EACH SET OF TWO THIRDS STATE APPLICATIONS REQUIRES CONGRESS CALL A CONVENTION AT THE TIME THE SET OF APPLICATIONS CAUSING THAT CALL IS COMPLETE. THE FACT CONGRESS HAS NOT CALLED A CONVENTION AT THE PROPER TIME ("ON THE APPLICATION") DOES NOT RELIEVE CONGRESS OF ITS MANDATED DUTY TO CALL A CONVENTION BASED ON EACH SET OF APPLYING STATES. Thus Congress is constitutionally obligated to call all conventions the state applications have caused to be called as well as any future conventions future applications may cause to be called.

The Founders were explicit on the constitutional requirement of a convention call:

"The National Rulers will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged '"on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."' The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress '"shall call a convention."' Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body." Federalist 85. Again, the fact Congress has no right to refuse to call a convention if the states apply and has no right of debate, vote or committee on the matter of a convention call was expressly stated in Congress on May 5, 1789.


Despite the fact a convention call is a "peremptory" mandate on Congress some suggest so-called "rescissions" where states assert a right to nullify the public record of previously submitted state applications must be taken into account before Congress is required to call a convention. However, as a "rescission" presents Congress a "discretion" which can be used by Congress to refuse to calling a convention, such "rescissions" are unconstitutional. Black's Law Dictionary does not even have a dictionary definition of constitutional rescission. Instead Black's only refers to contractual rescission, that is rescission of a contract between two parties usually based on some default of contract such fraud. While some have referred to the Constitution as a "social contract" between the federal government and the people, Black's Dictionary describes the Constitution as:


Simply put: Article V does not permit nor describe "rescissions" of applications. As such power is not described, it does not constitutionally exist.

Further, as all applications are enacted by states legislatures, such enactment is a matter of public record. This public record is received by Congress where it is published in the Congressional Record, a federal public record. As noted by the Archivist of the United States, under federal law, Congress assumes custody of the applications. This federal law describes the applications as the "property" of Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that whenever states are involved in the Article V amendment process they operate under the FEDERAL Constitution, not their own state constitutions. Thus federal law, not state law, is the governing rule in Article V. As Congress is the custodian of the applications, federal criminal law explicitly prohibits congressional officials from removing any record of application from the public record which is what all "rescissions" demand. Thus, if Congress, or any member of Congress, removes a record of application from the public record they violate federal criminal law. This federal criminal law existed before ANY "rescission" BY ANY STATE. CONGRESS HAS NEVER REMOVED A SINGLE APPLICATION FROM THE FEDERAL PUBLIC RECORD REGARDLESS OF ANY STATE "RESCISSION." Thus the "rescission" of an application is both unconstitutional and illegal.  Details of relevant federal law as well as a discussion of the political group behind this bogus theory can be read here. Therefore, as Congress is required to ignore "rescissions" under federal law, "rescissions" are disregarded here as they have no legal effect.

IN SUM: AS CONGRESS CANNOT REMOVE ANY APPLICATION FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IT IS OBLIGATED TO CALL CONVENTIONS BASED ON THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PUBLIC RECORD. THAT PUBLIC RECORD IS PRESENTED HERE AND SHOWS THAT CONGRESS IS OBLIGATED TO CALL TEN CONVENTIONS. Supreme Court rulings discussed elsewhere on this site as well as historic record (also presented on this site) substantiates these statements.


In order to present each set of state applications, they have been separated into "Application Tiers" beginning with the 1st Application Tier. This tier contains the oldest applications on record and moves progressively forward in time until two thirds of the applying states in the Union at the time of the final application needed to complete that tier is reached. WHEN A TIER IS COMPLETE, CONGRESS IS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE V TO CALL A CONVENTION BASED ON THAT SET OF TWO THIRDS APPLYING STATES. The process then repeats with the 2nd Application Tier and so forth. Each placeholder in a tier is called a position. Thus the state of Virginia occupies 1st Tier, 1st position, followed by the state of New York at 1st Tier, 2nd position and so forth. As each tier can contain only a single state application and all applications for a convention call  must be accounted for (as Congress has no constitutional authority to disregard any application and cannot legally remove it from the public record) all applications must appear in some position in some tier. Multiple applications by the same state therefore are placed in sequential order (based on either the page number in the Congressional Record or date of submission or both) in sequential tiers at the proper position. As other states have also submitted applications however, in some cases sequential state applications may "skip" tiers as these other state applications submitted prior to the next sequential state application may fill the next tier or tiers. The record of applications is inaccurate primarily because the House does not publish application texts, while the Senate does publish application texts, making direct comparison between Senate and House records impossible. Some assumptions are therefore required. It is assumed applications either on nearby pages of the Congressional Record or dated near each other whose notations do not contain text are probably one application from the state noted multiple times in the Congressional Record. These applications are grouped together in a single tier and position. If amendment subjects are described or the text of applications regardless of submission date, differ, it is assumed the applications in question are separate applications from the state. In such case these applications are placed on separate tiers and positions. If the dates of submission of applications is separated by different years, regardless of subject matter, it is assumed these are separate applications from the state and therefore placed on separate tiers and positions. For the purposes of this list Senate applications (where available) showing actual application text are given preference followed by any House records in each position.

For the purposes of this list, only verified applications, that is, actual text from official records of Congress are used. Reference sources (or state records) which refer to applications but are not verified by text from official records of Congress are disregarded. This decision is because applications must be received by Congress in order to "count." In some cases, applications have been "lost" most likely by congressional oversight. As these applications, mostly from the early years of our nation have yet to be located, but are alleged to exist by legal scholars or, in some cases are recorded in state records, this may create some inaccuracy in the list particularly in the 1st Tier. However if these applications are located, the list will be adjusted accordingly. The only possible effect of ignoring these unverified applications is the date Congress is obligated to call a convention comes at an even earlier date than the FOAVC records show. These records will only serve to add states to the tiers at a faster rate of conclusion than is now presented. The ultimate solution to this issue of inaccuracy in federal public record  is a federal law mandating complete accuracy of all applications by cataloging all state applications into an official federal record for the use by Congress and the general public.